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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0071 PRPC FILED 6-14-2018

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-048184-001 The Honorable John R. Ditsworth, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Law Offices of Robert J. McWhirter By Robert J. McWhirter Counsel for Petitioner Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent STATE v. KATIAL Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I U M: ¶1 Petitioner Sunil Chandra Katial 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 the petitioner’s third 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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶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 shown an abuse of discretion.

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.

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