Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0121 PRPC
09-17-2019
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ANDRE ANTONIO ADAMS, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent Andre Antonio Adams, Florence Petitioner
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2015-103936-001 DT
The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Daniel Strange
Counsel for Respondent
Andre Antonio Adams, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, and Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Andre Antonio Adams 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 second 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 but deny relief.