State v. Hernandez

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

SILVESTRE HERNANDEZ, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0881 PRPC FILED 1-16-2018

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-156097-001 The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Silvestre Hernandez, Florence Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James P. Beene, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Silvestre Hernandez 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 first petition for post-conviction relief.

¶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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (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 and deny relief.

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