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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                ROBERT FRANCIS LINDLEY, JR., Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 17-0442 PRPC
                               FILED 3-29-2018


     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                            No. CR1989-009011
                   The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED


                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Robert E. Prather
Counsel for Respondent

Robert Francis Lindley, Jr., Buckeye
Petitioner



                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge
Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court.
                            STATE v. LINDLEY
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Robert Francis Lindley, Jr. 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
seventh 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, ¶ 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            For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.




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




                                         2
