Opinion
1 CA-CR 23-0550 PRPC
10-29-2024
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GILBERT SAFWAN MADRIGAL, Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Phillip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Gilbert Safwan Madrigal, Florence Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2020-113363-001 The Honorable Monica S. Garfinkel, Judge Pro Tempore
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Phillip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent
Gilbert Safwan Madrigal, Florence Petitioner
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge D. Steven Williams, and Judge Daniel J. Kiley delivered the decision of the Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM
¶1 Petitioner Gilbert Madrigal seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is his second 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. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.