Court Opinion

ID: 9393938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 17:03:42.040521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.422798
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   JERAD LEE HALTERMAN, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 22-0605 PRPC
                             FILED 5-11-2023

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                         No. P1300CR201900780
                  The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott
By Kristen Sharifi
Counsel for Respondent

Jerad Lee Halterman, Florence
Petitioner
                          STATE v. HALTERMAN
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge D.
Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Jerad Lee Halterman 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 his first 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, 538, ¶ 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, petition, response,
reply. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4            For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.

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

                                         2