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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0536 PRPC FILED 3-31-2022

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2014-001312-001 and CR2013-442655-001 The Honorable Kerstin G. LeMaire, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent Ralph Frank Esposito, Jr., Tucson Petitioner STATE v. ESPOSITO Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Ralph Esposito 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 the petitioner’s fifth 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