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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.
CARNELL LAMONT DARGEN, Petitioner No. 1 CA-CR 17-0216 PRPC FILED 11-28-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2014-122849-001 The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix
By Adena Astrowsky
Counsel for Respondent
Carnell Lamont Dargen, San Luis
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court.
*2 STATE v. DARGEN Decision of the Court
PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Carnell Lamont Dargen 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.
2