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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.
CARLOS MEDINA, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 24-0171 PRPC FILED 03-11-2025 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2006-137150-002 The Honorable Michael C. Blair, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix
By Robert A. Walsh
Counsel for Respondent
Ardeo Law, PLLC, Tempe
By Katelyn R. Miller
Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. MEDINA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett, Judge Daniel J. Kiley, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Carlos Medina seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s latest 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, the petition for review , the state’s response and the petitioner’s reply . We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
2