Opinion
1 CA-CR 22-0267 PRPC
01-10-2023
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JON ANTHONY SCHWEDER, Petitioner.
Navajo County Attorney's Office, Holbrook By Bradley W. Carlyon Counsel for Respondent Jon Anthony Schweder, Florence Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Navajo County No. S0900CR20090633 The Honorable Melinda K. Hardy, Judge
Navajo County Attorney's Office, Holbrook By Bradley W. Carlyon Counsel for Respondent
Jon Anthony Schweder, Florence Petitioner
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.
Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective November 28, 2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-145, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court has designated Judge Swann as a judge pro tempore in the Court of Appeals for the purpose of participating in the resolution of cases assigned to this panel during his term in office and the period during which his vacancy remains open and for the duration of Administrative Order 2022-162.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM
¶1 Petitioner Jon Anthony Schweder seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner's fifth 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 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 petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.