State v. Pierce

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

JOHN BALLA PIERCE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0508 PRPC FILED 02-26-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2006-013269-001 The Honorable Chuck Whitehead, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Faith Cheree Klepper Counsel for Respondent

Brown & Little PLC, Chandler By Matthew O. Brown Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. PIERCE Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner John Balla Pierce seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s fourth 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. See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576–77 ¶ 19 (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, 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 that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR