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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
MARK CHRISTIAN HONICKY, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 22-0469 PRPC
1 CA-CR 22-0516 PRPC
(Consolidated)
FILED 4-6-2023
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-005795-001
The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Krista Wood
Counsel for Respondent
Mark Christian Honicky, Safford
Petitioner
STATE v. HONICKY
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge
Daniel J. Kiley delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Mark Christian Honicky seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This
is petitioner’s third 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 and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2