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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
HAI VAN LE, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0677 PRPC
FILED 1-3-2019
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2001-015185
The Honorable Peter A. Thompson, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Hai Van Le, Buckeye
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann, and
Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.
STATE v. LE
Decision of the Court
P E R C U R I A M:
¶1 Hai Le 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 the petitioner’s fifth 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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s
burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the
petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).
¶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 the petitioner has not shown any abuse of
discretion.
¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2
State v. Le
Combined Opinion