State v. Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
• Decided: July 16, 2024
• Docket: 1 CA-CV 23-0321
• Status: Unpublished

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

KURT BRAXTON WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0321 PRPC FILED 07-16-2024

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 1997-014978 The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

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

Kurt Braxton Williams, Buckeye Petitioner STATE v. WILLIAMS Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Kurt Williams seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is the petitioner’s seventh 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. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 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 the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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