State v. Smith

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

CHRISTOPHER LEE SMITH, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0363 PRPC

FILED 05-28-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2008-102616-001

The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent

Christopher Lee Smith, Tucson Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Veronika Fabian, and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

STATE v. SMITH Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Christopher Lee Smith seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. This is Smith’s fifth petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, we will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). Smith bears the burden to show the superior court abused its discretion by denying his 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. Smith has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We therefore grant review and deny relief.

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