                      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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                    CHRISTIAN ALLEN BELK, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 18-0729 PRPC
                               FILED 3-5-2019


       Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County
                          No. S1400CR200900319
             The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge Pro Tempore

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED


                                    COUNSEL

Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Yuma
By Charles V.S. Platt
Counsel for Respondent

Christian Allen Belk, Florence
Petitioner
                               STATE v. BELK
                             Decision of the Court



                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Randall M. Howe, and Judge
Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the following decision.


PER CURIAM:

¶1          Petitioner Christian Belk 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 Belk’s second 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, and the petition
for review. 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




                                          2
