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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0155 PRPC FILED 7-19-2018

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2014-124936-001 The Honorable Annielaurie Van Wie, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Adena J. Astrowsky Counsel for Respondent Sean Patrick Richey, Phoenix Petitioner STATE v. RICHEY Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Sean Patrick Richey 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, 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).

¶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.

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