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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0266 PRPC FILED 2-6-2024

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2004-035015-001 The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Julie A. Done, Jessi C. Wade Counsel for Respondent Zhivago Law, Phoenix By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. CONLEY Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Joseph Conley 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 Conley’s third 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, the petition for review, and response. 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