Opinion
1 CA-CR 21-0436 PRPC
05-31-2022
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ROBERT RICHARD SPURLING, III, Petitioner.
Coconino County Attorney's Office, Flagstaff By William P. Ring Counsel for Respondent Robert Richard Spurling, III, Florence Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. CR2008-0672 The Honorable Cathleen Brown Nichols, Judge
Coconino County Attorney's Office, Flagstaff
By William P. Ring
Counsel for Respondent
Robert Richard Spurling, III, Florence
Petitioner
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM
¶1 Petitioner Robert Richard Spurling seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner's second successive 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, 260 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. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.