Court Opinion

ID: 9895521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 18:04:10.257659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:30.747627
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                     KRISTA MARIE CLINE, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 23-0154 PRPC
                              FILED 11-7-2023

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                         No. V1300CR201780520
                  The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott
By George Rodriguez
Counsel for Respondent

Krista Marie Cline, Goodyear
Petitioner

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Michael S. Catlett, and Judge
Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.
                              STATE v. CLINE
                             Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1             Petitioner Krista Marie Cline seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying her petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s 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 relief, and the petition
for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of
discretion. With respect to petitioner’s claim that her trial and appellate
counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to a
jury instruction, we do not rely on the invited error doctrine. We, instead,
conclude that petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for obtaining
post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v.
Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 567 ¶ 21 (2006) (“Failure to satisfy either prong of the
Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”).

¶4            We grant review and deny relief.

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

                                          2