State v. Nichols

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

RAYPHE DANIEL NICHOLS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0191 PRPC FILED 11-19-2019

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR 2012-150435-001 CR 2015-110851-001 The Honorable Erin Otis, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Frankie Y. Jones Counsel for Respondent

Rayphe Daniel Nichols, San Luis Petitioner STATE v. NICHOLS Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judges Lawrence F. Winthrop and Michael J. Brown joined.

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Petitioner Rayphe Daniel Nichols 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 review.

¶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