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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
JAMES RAY HUNTER, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 22-0263 PRPC
FILED 1-10-2023
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 1993-006452
The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Krista Wood
Counsel for Respondent
James Ray Hunter, San Luis
Petitioner
STATE v. HUNTER
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Peter
B. Swann1 delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner James Ray Hunter seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s fourth 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.
1 Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the
matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective
November 28, 2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6,
Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-145, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme
Court has designated Judge Swann as a judge pro tempore in the Court of
Appeals for the purpose of participating in the resolution of cases assigned
to this panel during his term in office and the period during which his
vacancy remains open and for the duration of Administrative Order 2022-
162.
2
STATE v. HUNTER
Decision of the Court
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
3