Case Information
*1 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
A RIZONA C OURT OF A PPEALS
D IVISION O NE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent , v.
JEREMY CARDWELL, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 22-0529 PRPC FILED 4-6-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2013-101774-001 The Honorable Joseph Kreamer, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix
By Krista Wood
Counsel for Respondent
Jeremy Cardwell, Tucson
Petitioner
STATE v. CARDWELL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the following decision.
PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Jeremy Cardwell 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.
2