Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0430 PRPC
10-30-2018
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JAMES ROBERT HOLLAND, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent James Robert Holland, Kingman 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2013-103231-002 CR2013-432246-001
The Honorable Teresa A. Sanders, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
James Robert Holland, Kingman
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, and Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner James Robert Holland 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 hold that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.