State v. Leacock

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

DONALD K. LEACOCK, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0186 PRPC

FILED 7-31-2018

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County Nos. S0300CR20080187

S0300CR20080511

The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By Stacy Lynn Krueger

Counsel for Respondent

Donald K. Leacock, Florence

Petitioner STATE v. LEACOCK

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Donald K. Leacock 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 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, 577, ¶ 19 (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, 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 that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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