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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0532 PRPC FILED 12-17-2024 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2008-133258-001 The Honorable David J. Palmer, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Bradley F. Perry Counsel for Respondent Frank John Arnold, Florence Petitioner STATE v. ARNOLD Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge D. Steven Williams, and Judge Daniel J. Kiley delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Frank John Arnold seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. In its order, the superior court described Arnold’s filing as his “fourth” petition for post- conviction relief. However, his initial petition was withdrawn without prejudice in 2012 because his direct appeal was still pending. After this court affirmed Arnold’s convictions and sentences, in 2014 he filed what the superior court recognized as his first petition, and in 2018 he filed his second petition. Both of those petitions were denied. We therefore treat Arnold’s most recent petition, which the superior court denied in November 2023 and is the subject of this review proceeding, as his third petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Arnold, 1 CA-CR 18-0768 PRPC, 2019 WL 1461494, at *1 (App. Apr. 2, 2019) (mem. decision) (denying petitioner’s “second 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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, P.3d 1102, 1103 (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 State’s response. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.

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