State v. Freeman

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 1 CA-CR 25-0239 PRPC
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Cynthia J. Bailey

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

BENJAMIN FREEMAN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0239 PRPC FILED 12-23-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2013-003808-001 The Honorable Margaret LaBianca, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

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

Benjamin Freeman, Yuma Petitioner STATE v. FREEMAN Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Benjamin Freeman seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s seventh successive petition.

¶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 the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (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 post-conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.

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