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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 ARTHUR VAUGHN, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 23-0255 PRPC
FILED 11-28-2023
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR0000-134298
The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Douglas Gerlach
Counsel for Respondent
Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale,
By Stephen L. Duncan
Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. VAUGHN
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judges Kent E. Cattani and Anni
Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner James Arthur Vaughn seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s fifth 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, the petition for
review, and State’s response. We find that 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