State v. Mendoza

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

VINCENT MENDOZA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0214 PRPC
FILED 01-04-2024

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-002264-001
The Honorable William R. Wingard, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Philip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Vincent Mendoza, St. Johns
Petitioner
 STATE v. MENDOZA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams, Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Judge
Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision.

PER CURIUM:

¶1 Petitioner Vincent Mendoza 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 latest
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. The petitioner has failed to show an abuse of discretion.

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, this Court grants review but denies
relief.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: TM

2