State v. Shephard

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

TICHINA SHEPHARD, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0151 PRPC
FILED 11-30-2023

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-005699-002
The Honorable Danielle. J. Viola, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Douglas Gerlach
Counsel for Respondent

Brown and Little, PLC, Chandler
By Matthew O. Brown
Counsel for Petitioner
 STATE v. SHEPHARD
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, and Judge
Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Tichina Shephard seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying her petition for post-conviction relief. This is her first
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, 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, the petition for
review, and the state’s response. 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