Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0334 PRPC
03-05-2020
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MANUEL BUSTILLOS, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Andrea L. Kever Counsel for Respondent Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix By Natalee E. Segal Counsel for 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2013-431584-001
The Honorable Virginia L. Richter, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Andrea L. Kever
Counsel for Respondent
Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix
By Natalee E. Segal
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Manuel Bustillos 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 (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.