Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0153 PRPC
10-31-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CARLEEN CRENSHAW BRUCE, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Gerald R. Grant Counsel for Respondent Carleen Crenshaw Bruce, Goodyear 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2010-112998-001 SE
The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Gerald R. Grant
Counsel for Respondent
Carleen Crenshaw Bruce, Goodyear
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Diane M. Johnsen, and Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Carleen Crenshaw Bruce seeks review of the superior court's order denying her petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's first petition for review.
¶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, ¶ 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.