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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0181 PRPC FILED 8-27-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2006-108473-002 The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge, Retired REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Edward Maurice Ware, Buckeye Petitioner Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Lisa Marie Martin Counsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

STATE v. WARE Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Edward Maurice Ware 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 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. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.

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