State v. Dover

Court of Appeals of Arizona

State v. Dover

DecidedFebruary 3, 2026

Docket1 CA-CR 25-0340 PRPC

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Dover (State v. Dover) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dover, (Ark. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

JAMES JOSEPH DOVER, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0340 PRPC FILED 02-03-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-159328-001, CR2012-007830-001 The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

James Joseph Dover, Yuma Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Phillip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Andrew J. Becke, and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. DOVER Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner James Joseph Dover seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s third petition in CR2012-159328 and second petition in CR2012-007830.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, we 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) (noting that the petitioner has the 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 relief, and the petition for review. We find that the petitioner has not established that the superior court abused its discretion by finding that Dover’s successive PCR petitions did not establish any colorable claims for relief.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI