Court Opinion

ID: 4212146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-17 15:03:58.048238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:04.237545
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                 AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

                                    IN THE
             ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
                                DIVISION ONE

                     STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

                                        v.

                    DAVID GLEN WIGGINS, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 16-0567 PRPC
                              FILED 10-17-2017

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                       No. CR2011-154102-001 SE
                 The Honorable Karen A. Mullins, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane M. Meloche
Counsel for Respondent

David Glen Wiggins, Florence
Petitioner

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Diane M. Johnsen, and
Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.
                             STATE v. WIGGINS
                             Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner David Glen Wiggins seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant
to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s second
successive petition.

¶2             Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will
not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction
relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s
burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying
the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1
(App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on
review).

¶3             We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior
court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the
petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse
of discretion.

¶4            We grant review and deny relief.1

                        AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                         FILED: AA

1      After filing his second petition for post-conviction relief, Petitioner
filed an “Amended Motion for Order Allowing Leave to Amend Petition
for Review to the Court of Appeals.” We deny the aforementioned
motion.

                                          2