Opinion
1 CA-CR 22-0477 PRPC
04-06-2023
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ARMANDO MEDRANO VALENZUELA, Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent Armando Medrano Valenzuela, Eloy Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2011-006301-001 CR2011-006241-001 The Honorable Pamela Gates, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent
Armando Medrano Valenzuela, Eloy Petitioner
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the following decision.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM
¶1 Petitioner Armando Medrano Valenzuela seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. This is Petitioner's third 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 the 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).
¶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 the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review but deny relief.