Opinion
1 CA-CR 23-0375 PRPC
03-21-2024
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. THOMAS NOUAN, Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Douglas Gerlach Counsel for Respondent The Law Office of Brent E. Graham, PLLC, Flagstaff By Brent E. Graham Counsel for Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1997-093519 The Honorable Christina Henderson, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Douglas Gerlach Counsel for Respondent
The Law Office of Brent E. Graham, PLLC, Flagstaff By Brent E. Graham Counsel for Petitioner
Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster, Judge Brian Y. Furuya, and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM
¶1 Petitioner Thomas Nouan seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is Petitioner's third 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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (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.