Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0826 PRPC
10-19-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. THOMAS ALAN HIEMSTRA, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Gerald R. Grant Counsel for Respondent Thomas Alan Hiemstra, Tucson Petitioner Pro Per
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2011-150761-001
The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Gerald R. Grant
Counsel for Respondent
Thomas Alan Hiemstra, Tucson
Petitioner Pro Per
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the following decision.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Thomas Alan Hiemstra 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 petitioner's first successive 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 the 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, ¶ 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 the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review but deny relief.