Opinion
1 CA-CR 22-0514 PRPC
05-11-2023
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GARY LANE EISENMANN, Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent Gary Lane Eisenmann, Eloy Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2012-009381-001, CR2014-001133-001 The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge (Retired)
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent
Gary Lane Eisenmann, Eloy Petitioner
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM
¶1 Petitioner Gary Lane Eisenmann seeks review of the superior court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is his 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, as well as the superior court's order dismissing the petition for post-conviction, the petition, response, reply, and additional related filings. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.