State v. Madrigal ( 2024 )

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
GILBERT SAFWAN MADRIGAL, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 23-0550 PRPC
FILED 10-29-2024
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2020-113363-001
The Honorable Monica S. Garfinkel, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APPEARANCES
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent
Gilbert Safwan Madrigal, Florence
Petitioner
STATE v. MADRIGAL
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge D. Steven Williams, and Judge
Daniel J. Kiley delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Gilbert Madrigal seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is his
second 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, 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, 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. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AGFV
2