Opinion
1 CA-CR 22-0214 PRPC
12-15-2022
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MARTIN RICHARD APODACA, Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent Martin Richard Apodaca, Eloy Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-007703-003 The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent
Martin Richard Apodaca, Eloy Petitioner
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Randall M. Howe, and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIUM
¶1 Petitioner Martin Richard Apodaca 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 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, the petition for review, as well as the state's response. The petitioner has failed to show an abuse of discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, this court grants review but denies relief.