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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                      ARTHUR CARMONA, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 18-0457 PRPC
                               FILED 10-9-2018


    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2013-424039-001
                  The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED


                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent

Arthur Carmona, Kingman
Petitioner



                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge
Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court.
                            STATE v. CARMONA
                             Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Arthur Carmona 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 petitioner’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 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. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4            For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.




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

                                         2
