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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0022 PRPC FILED 6-10-2021

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400CR201701124 The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Charles Platt Counsel for Respondent Sanford P. Saulsberry, Florence Petitioner STATE v. SAULSBERRY Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Sanford P. Saulsberry seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. 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 the 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 the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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