State v. Salerno

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. FOX JOSEPH SALERNO, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 23-0020 PRPC FILED 5-11-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2000-017362 The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent Fox Joseph Salerno, Limon, Colorado Petitioner STATE v. SALERNO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Fox Joseph Salerno seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is his twelfth 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 dismissing the petition for post-conviction and petition. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2