State
v.
Gray

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONESep 11, 2018
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0432 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2018)

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0432 PRPC

09-11-2018

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MATTHEW STEVEN GRAY, Petitioner.

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Matthew Steven Gray, Florence Petitioner


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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2007-007512-001
The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent

Matthew Steven Gray, Florence
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Matthew Steven Gray 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 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 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.