STATE v. LATHAM

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. RAYMOND ALFRED LATHAM, IV, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 17-0123 PRPC FILED 11-28-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2007-109937-001 The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Raymond Alfred Latham, IV, Florence Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. LATHAM Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Raymond Alfred Latham, IV, 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 third 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. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2