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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
CHARLES TAYLOR CROCKETT, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 21-0341 PRPC
FILED 1-13-2022
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2011-006752-003
The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent
The Law Office of Stephen L. Crawford, P.L.L.C., Phoenix
By Stephen L. Crawford
Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. CROCKETT
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams, Judge David B. Gass, and Judge James
B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIUM:
¶1 Petitioner Charles Taylor Crockett seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s latest 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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (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. The petitioner has failed to show an abuse of discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, this court grants review but denies
relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2