State v. Thomas

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

JENSEN EDWARD THOMAS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0797 PRPC FILED 5-15-2018

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400CR201300151 The Honorable Lawrence C. Kenworthy, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Yuma By Charles V. S. Platt Counsel for Respondent

Jensen Edward Thomas, Florence Petitioner STATE v. THOMAS Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I U M:

¶1 Petitioner Jensen Edward Thomas 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.

¶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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. 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. We find that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion.

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA