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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.
JORGE SARABIA, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 21-0326 PRPC FILED 1-25-2022 P etition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2008-147702-001
The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge, Retired REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Daniel Strange
Counsel for Respondent
Jorge Carlos Centeno-Sarabia, Florence
Petitioner
STATE v. SARABIA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Jorge Sarabia seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s first 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.
2