STATE v. TULL

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CONRAD ANTHONY TULL, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 18-0574 PRPC FILED 11-20-18 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2011-123789-27 The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Robert E. Prather Counsel for Respondent Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson By Harriette P. Levitt Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. TULL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Paul J. McMurdie, and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Conrad Anthony Tull 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 second 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, the petition for review, and response. 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: JT 2