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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
ROBERT RICHARD SPURLING, III, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 21-0436 PRPC
FILED 5-31-2022
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County
No. CR2008-0672
The Honorable Cathleen Brown Nichols, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff
By William P. Ring
Counsel for Respondent
Robert Richard Spurling, III, Florence
Petitioner
STATE v. SPURLING
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge D.
Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Robert Richard Spurling seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This
is petitioner’s second 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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (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
State v. Spurling
Combined Opinion