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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
MICHAEL MARION COTHAM, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0091 PRPC
FILED 9-19-2019
Petition for Review from the Maricopa County
No. CR2012-133092-002
The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Robert E. Prather
Counsel for Respondent
Michael Marion Cotham, Florence
Petitioner
STATE v. COTHAM
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Chief Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge
Samuel A. Thumma delivered the following decision.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Michael Cotham 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 Cotham’s first 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 the 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 the 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
State v. Cotham
Combined Opinion