Opinion
1 CA-CR 23-0152 PRPC
01-25-2024
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LEE R. COMIER, JR., Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Arizona Capital Representation Project, Tucson By Sam Kooistra, Amy Armstrong Counsel for Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 1997-094189 The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent
Arizona Capital Representation Project, Tucson By Sam Kooistra, Amy Armstrong Counsel for Petitioner
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, and Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM
¶1 Petitioner Lee R. Comier, Jr. seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is his seventh 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, 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, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.