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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0180 PRPC FILED 02-06-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 1988-009179 The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent James Edward Pingel, Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett, Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

STATE v. PINGEL Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner James Edward Pingel seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s fourth 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 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 that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.

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