State v. Mora

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. RICKEY ESTRADA MORA, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 19-0067 PRPC FILED 8-6-2019 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2000-001447 The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Andrea L. Kever Counsel for Respondent Rickey Estrada Mora, Kingman Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Kent E. Cattani, and Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. MORA Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Rickey Estrada Mora 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, 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 but deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2