Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0775 PRPC
10-19-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ADAN ORDUNO JR., Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Adan Orduno Jr., Buckeye 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Maricopa County
No. CR2012-158171-001
The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Adan Orduno Jr., Buckeye
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson, and Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Adan Orduno Jr. 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 the petitioner's first petition, but it was not timely filed. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a).
¶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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).
¶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 shown any abuse of discretion.
¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.