State v. Tull

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

CLARENCE ANDREW TULL, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0228 PRPC

FILED 7-24-18

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-123789-016

The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Law Offices of Thomas E. Higgins, Tucson

By Thomas E. Higgins, Jr.

Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. TULL

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Petitioner Clarence Tull 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 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, 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 any abuse of discretion.

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.

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