STATE v. FERRERO

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. PATRICK MICHAEL FERRERO, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 16-0851 PRPC FILED 1-9-2018 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2009-103770-001 The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Patrick Michael Ferrero, Kingman Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson, and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. FERRERO Decision of the Court P E R C U R I A M: ¶1 Petitioner Patrick Ferrero seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his motion to clarify and correct an unlawful sentence, which we treat as a petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3 (directing the trial court to treat a request for a post-trial remedy as a petition for postconviction relief). This is the petitioner’s first, albeit untimely, 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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶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 shown any abuse of discretion. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief. 2