State v. Morehead

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v.

WILLIAM EDWARD MOREHEAD, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0884 PRPC

FILED 11-30-2017

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR1992-090932 and CR1992-091437

The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

William Edward Morehead, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Acting Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann, Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the court.

STATE v. MOREHEAD

Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner William Edward Morehead 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 Morehead’s first petition on the forgery case, and his sixth petition on the sexual offense case.

¶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 the 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 the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA