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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.
PHILIP STEVEN MATWYUK, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 16-0833 PRPC FILED 11-7-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CR201200754
The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge (Retired) REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Mohave County Attorney ’ s Office, Kingman
By Matthew J. Smith
Counsel for Respondent
Philip Steven Matwyuk, Tucson
Petitioner
STATE v. MATWYUK Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM :
¶1
Petitioner Philip Steven Matwyuk 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 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 (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 (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