State v. Saulsberry ( 2021 )

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
SANDY PERRANOSKI SAULSBERRY, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 21-0022 PRPC
FILED 6-10-2021
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County
No. S1400CR201701124
The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Charles Platt
Counsel for Respondent
Sanford P. Saulsberry, Florence
Petitioner
STATE v. SAULSBERRY
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, and Judge
Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the following decision.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Sanford P. Saulsberry seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant
to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. This is 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, 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