Opinion
1 CA-CR 22-0156 PRPC
11-22-2022
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. OWEN ARVIE THOMPSON, Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent Owen Arvie Thompson, 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Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR1997-012793 The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent
Owen Arvie Thompson, Florence Petitioner
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM.
¶1Petitioner Owen Arvie Thompson seeks review of the superior court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's third petition after being retried but his fourth in the case overall.
¶2Absent 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).
¶3We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief and amended petition for review. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.