State v. Dover

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0340 PRPC FILED 02-03-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-159328-001, CR2012-007830-001 The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL James Joseph Dover, Yuma Petitioner Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Phillip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Andrew J. Becke, and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.

STATE v. DOVER Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner James Joseph Dover seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s third petition in CR2012-159328 and second petition in CR2012-007830.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, we 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) (noting that the petitioner has the 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 relief, and the petition for review. We find that the petitioner has not established that the superior court abused its discretion by finding that Dover’s successive PCR petitions did not establish any colorable claims for relief.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR