State v. Stewart

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

JENGHIZ K. STEWART, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0055 PRPC

FILED 8-24-2021

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 1996-005461

The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker

Counsel for Respondent

Jenghiz K. Stewart, Kingman

Petitioner STATE v. STEWART

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jenghiz K. Stewart seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his latest successive petition for post-conviction relief.

¶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. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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