State v. Taylor

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

CAMERON LEEZELL TAYLOR, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0534 PRPC FILED 03-18-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2014-000910-001 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

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

Cameron Leezell Taylor, Eloy Petitioner STATE v. TAYLOR Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Cameron Taylor 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 Taylor’s second petition.

¶2 We will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent an abuse of discretion or legal error. See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Taylor has the burden to show that the superior court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶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. Taylor has not established error.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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