State v. Bradford

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

WADE EUGENE BRADFORD, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0395 PRPC

FILED 4-1-2021

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2010-048445-001, CR2012-010181-001 The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Lisa Marie Martin

Counsel for Respondent

Wade Eugene Bradford, San Luis

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Randall M. Howe, and Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

STATE v. BRADFORD

Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Wade Eugene Bradford 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, 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, response, and reply. 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