STATE v. ESTRADA

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 18-0314 PRPC FILED 8-7-2018 Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. CR2008-0671 The Honorable Jacqueline Hatch, Judge REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff By William P. Ring Counsel for Respondent Alejandro Estrada, Florence Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, and Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. ESTRADA Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Alejandro Estrada 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, 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 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2