State v. Osorio-Rosas

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

EMELIO OSORIO-ROSAS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0560 PRPC

FILED 12-27-18

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2011-134532-001

The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Emelio Osorio-Rosas, Florence

Petitioner STATE v. OSORIO-ROSAS

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Paul J. McMurdie, and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Emelio Osorio-Rosas seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his third, untimely petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1.

¶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: JT