State v. Kristoff

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

KIM C. KRISTOFF, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0374 PRPC FILED 4-20-2023

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2017-151263-001 The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge, Retired

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Quinton S. Gregory Counsel for Respondent

Curry, Pearson & Wooten, P.L.C., Phoenix By Kristen Curry Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. KRISTOFF Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass, Judge Brian Y. Furuya, and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Kris C. Kristoff seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’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, 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, the petition for review, the response, and the reply. 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