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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0251 PRPC FILED 05-16-2024

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2016-002165-001 CR2016-002960-001 CR2018-102788-001 The Honorable Ronda R. Fisk, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson, Florence Petitioner STATE v. MURPHY-RICHARDSON Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Michael J. Brown delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson 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 Murphy- Richardson’s third and fourth petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or legal error, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Petitioner has the burden to show that the superior court erred in denying the petition for post- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 This court has reviewed the record in this matter, the order denying the petition for post-conviction relief and the petition for review.

This court finds the petitioner has not established error.

¶4 This court grants review but denies relief.

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