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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
ADAM ARTHUR BORJA, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0749 PRPC
FILED 8-22-2019
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 2006-145356-001
The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APPEARANCES
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Andrea L. Kever
Counsel for Respondent
Adam Arthur Borja, Buckeye
Petitioner
STATE v. BORJA
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge
Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Adam Arthur Borja seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant
to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s third
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, ¶ 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 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2
State v. Borja
Combined Opinion