*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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.

BENJAMIN FREEMAN, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 21-0020 PRPC FILED 8-5-2021 P etition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2013-003808-001, CR2013-003877-001 The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker

Counsel for Respondent

Benjamin Freeman, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

*2 STATE v. FREEMAN Decision of the Court PER CURIAM : Petitioner Benjamin Freeman seeks review of the superior

¶1 court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. 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, 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). We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior

¶3 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