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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                         No. 1 CA-CR 17-0230 PRPC
                              FILED 1-4-2018


     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR201100415
               The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Retired Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED


                                   COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman
By Matthew J. Smith
Counsel for Respondent

Arthur Andrew Leyba, Florence
Petitioner



                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson, and Judge
Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court.
                             STATE v. LEYBA
                            Decision of the Court

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1          Petitioner Arthur Leyba 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 the petitioner’s first
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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s
burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the
petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶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 shown any abuse of discretion.

¶4            Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.




                                      2
