State v. Nouan

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0375 PRPC FILED 3-21-2024 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1997-093519 The Honorable Christina Henderson, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Douglas Gerlach Counsel for Respondent The Law Office of Brent E. Graham, PLLC, Flagstaff By Brent E. Graham Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. NOUAN Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster, Judge Brian Y. Furuya, and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Thomas Nouan seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is Petitioner’s third successive 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, 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, 260 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, and the petition for review. We find that Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.

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