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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.
MICHAEL CRAIG WALTON, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 21-0200 PRPC FILED 12-23-2021 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2005-033651-001 The Honorable Howard D. Sukenic, Judge REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent
Gurion Legal, Phoenix
By Omer Gurion
Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. WALTON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe, Judge Brian Y. Furuya, and Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the court.
PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Michael Craig Walton seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s fourth 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 (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). ¶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 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
2