State
v.
McLean

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONESep 11, 2018
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0413 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2018)

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0413 PRPC

09-11-2018

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. THOMAS LARRY MCLEAN, Petitioner.

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche Counsel for Respondent Thomas Larry McLean, Tucson 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2011-147566-003 DT
The Honorable Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane M. Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Thomas Larry McLean, Tucson
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Kent E. Cattani, and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Thomas Larry McLean 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 third 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, 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. ¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

The petition for review demonstrates McLean's understandable confusion about the distinction between an enhanced sentence—which he received under Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-703(C) and (J) based on his two historical prior felony convictions—and an aggravated sentence, which he did not receive. "Sentence enhancement elevates the entire range of permissible punishment while aggravation and mitigation raise or lower a sentence within that range." State v. Alvarez, 205 Ariz. 110, 112 n.1, ¶ 4 (App. 2003). --------