STATE v. FIERRO

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JOSE A. FIERRO, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 17-0506 PRPC FILED 1-25-2018 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR0000-153626 The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche, Counsel for Respondent Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Daniel P. Schaack Counsel for Arizona Department of Corrections Jose A. Fierro, Buckeye Petitioner STATE v. FIERRO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Jose A. Fierro 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 sixth 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, 538, ¶ 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 We grant review and deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2