State v. Watrous ( 2019 )

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
ROY RAYMOND WATROUS, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0124 PRPC
FILED 9-2-2019
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-149125-001
The Honorable James R. Rummage, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Roy Raymond Watrous, Buckeye
Petitioner
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Daniel Strange
Counsel for Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge
Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court.
STATE v. WATROUS
Decision of the Court
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Roy Raymond Watrous 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
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 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: AA
2