Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 20-0324 PRPC
02-09-2021
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MARK WILLIAM CLARY, JR., Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Lisa Marie Martin Counsel for Respondent Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix By Lori L. Voepel 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-119994-001
The Honorable Howard D. Sukenic, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Counsel for Respondent
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix
By Lori L. Voepel
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the following decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Mark William Clary, Jr. 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, the petition for review, response and reply. The petitioner has failed to show an abuse of discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, this court grants review but denies relief.