State v. Eddy

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
• Decided: April 7, 2020
• Docket: 1 CA-CR 19-0452-PRPC
• Status: Unpublished

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

DENNIS PAUL EDDY, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0452 PRPC FILED 4-7-2020

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. CR84-010749 No. CR85-011929 The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Respondent

Dennis Paul Eddy, Safford Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. EDDY Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Dennis Paul Eddy (Eddy) petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his request for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 This is Eddy’s tenth Rule 32 petition. See, e.g., State v. Eddy, 1 CA-CR 17-0488 PRPC, 2018 WL 947736 (App. Feb. 20, 2018). Eddy has also filed five previous habeas petitions. See, e.g., Eddy v. State, 1 CA-HC 17-0006, 2018 WL 3731000 (App. July 31, 2018).

¶2 In 1986, a jury convicted Eddy of first-degree burglary, aggravated assault, weapons misconduct, criminal damage, and theft of firearms. Id. At the time of these criminal acts, Eddy was in parole custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections. See Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 428 (1990). The superior court sentenced Eddy to the maximum term of incarceration for each offense.

¶3 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. See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). Eddy bears the burden of showing 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).

¶4 This court has reviewed the record, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition for review. Eddy’s petition fails to raise a colorable claim, largely repeating arguments previously considered and dismissed. Because Eddy has not shown an abuse of discretion, this court grants review and denies relief.

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

1 New rules governing post-conviction relief went into effect January 1,

2020. See Ariz. S. Ct. Order No. R-19-0012 (Aug. 29, 2019). Because Eddy’s petition was filed and decided by the superior court before January 1, 2020, this court cites to the rule then in effect.