State v. Taubman

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
KEVIN MICHAEL TAUBMAN, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 20-0351 PRPC
FILED 2-11-2021
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2011-005457-002
The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge, Retired
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Counsel for Respondent
The Ferragut Law Firm, P.C., Phoenix
By Ulises A. Ferragut, Jr.
Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. TAUBMAN
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge David
D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Kevin Michael Taubman 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, ¶ 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, the petition for
review, and the response. 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