State v. Duke ( 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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
BRENT FITZGERALD DUKE, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0147 PRPC
FILED 11-19-2019
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Navajo County
Nos. S0900CR201400538
S0900CR201500155
S0900CR201500407
The Honorable Ralph E. Hatch, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APPEARANCES
Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff
By Mark D. Huston
Counsel for Respondent
Brent Fitzgerald Duke, Buckeye
Petitioner
STATE v. DUKE
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judges Lawrence F. Winthrop and Michael J. Brown joined.
P E R C U R I A M:
¶1 Petitioner Brent Fitzgerald Duke 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,
untimely petition for review.
¶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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (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 and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2