Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0291 PRPC
03-26-2020
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JONATHAN ROGER OCHOA, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Yuma County Attorney's Office, Yuma By Jon R. Smith Counsel for Respondent Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson By Harriette P. Levitt 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County
No. S1400CR201200498
The Honorable Brandon S. Kinsey, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Yuma County Attorney's Office, Yuma
By Jon R. Smith
Counsel for Respondent
Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson
By Harriette P. Levitt
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.
BROWN, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Jonathan Roger Ochoa 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, ¶ 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 find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.