State v. Black ( 2018 )

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 BLACK, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 17-0793 PRPC
FILED 4-17-2018
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. CR2007-116233-001 DT
CR2008-007161-001 DT
CR2011-146197-001 SE
The Honorable J. Justin McGuire, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane M. Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Arthur Black, Eloy
Petitioner
STATE v. BLACK
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and
Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Arthur Black 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
successive 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. We find that 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