STATE v. LOPEZ

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. EVERADO LOPEZ, JR., Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 18-0046 PRPC FILED 6-14-2018 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2003-014080-008 DT The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Everado Lopez, Jr., Buckeye Petitioner STATE v. LOPEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court. P E R C U R I U M: ¶1 Petitioner Everado Lopez, Jr. 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 the 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, 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 an abuse of discretion. ¶4 The petitioner has additionally filed three motions for this panel’s review. As to the petitioner’s Motion to Include Parole Revocation Hearing Audio Pursuant to Rule 32, we deny this attempt to supplement the record. As to the petitioner’s Motion for Clarification of Claims Not Properly Addressed, we deny this as a motion to attempt to supplement the petition. Finally, as to the petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Petition to Accelerate Appeal Pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), we deny this as moot. ¶5 Accordingly, on the petition, we grant review and deny relief. Additionally, the petitioner’s motions are denied. 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.