STATE v. MORGAN

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. THOMAS GLENN MORGAN, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0110 PRPC FILED 4-11-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2008-129836-001 DT CR2010-161928-001 DT The Honorable Christine E. Mulleneaux, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Thomas Glenn Morgan, Buckeye Petitioner Pro Se STATE v. MORGAN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Donn Kessler joined. D O W N I E, Judge: ¶1 Thomas Glenn Morgan petitions for review from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Morgan seeks review of the superior court’s order of dismissal dated January 13, 2015. That order addresses a petition for post-conviction relief that Morgan filed on September 30, 2014. The same petition for post-conviction relief and order of dismissal are the subject of an earlier petition for review that is currently pending in this Court — State v. Morgan, 1 CA-CR 15-0093 PRPC. Morgan does not seek different relief in this second petition for review, but simply asks this Court “to grant notice of appeal from court decision dated January 13, 2015.” ¶2 The court will consider Morgan’s petition for review of the order of dismissal dated January 13, 2015 in State v. Morgan, 1 CA-CR 15-0093 PRPC. We deny relief in the instant case without prejudice to our consideration of any issues properly presented for review in 1 CA-CR 15-0093 PRPC. CONCLUSION ¶3 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.