State v. Noble

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
ANDREW MILO NOBLE, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0510 PRPC
FILED 11-20-18
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 0000-146404
The Honorable Joseph P. Mikitish, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APPEARANCES
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Andrew Milo Noble, Florence
Petitioner
STATE v. NOBLE
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Paul J. McMurdie, and Judge
Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Andrew Milo Noble 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 seventh
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, ¶ 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 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JT
2