State v. Taubman

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

KEVIN MICHAEL TAUBMAN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0351 PRPC

FILED 2-11-2021

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-005457-002

The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge, Retired REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Lisa Marie Martin

Counsel for Respondent

The Ferragut Law Firm, P.C., Phoenix

By Ulises A. Ferragut, Jr.

Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. TAUBMAN

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Kevin Michael Taubman 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 (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 (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, the petition for review, and the response. 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