State v. Justice

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
• Decided: January 4, 2018
• Docket: 1 CA-CR 16-0601-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• Status: Unpublished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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.

CRAIG DWAYNE JUSTICE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0601 PRPC FILED 1-4-2018

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-118843-001 The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Andrea L. Kever Counsel for Respondent

Craig Dwayne Justice, Douglas Petitioner STATE v. JUSTICE Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Craig Justice 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 Justice’s first 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 the 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 the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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