State v. Parks

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

EDWARD FAYE PARKS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0819 PRPC FILED 4-30-2019

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S815CR201100853 The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Edward Faye Parks, Tucson Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Kingman By Matthew J. Smith Counsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Jon W. Thompson and Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the following decision. STATE v. PARKS Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Edward Faye Parks 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 third 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