State v. Habenicht
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 229 Ariz. 573
- 227 Ariz. 537 not in our corpus
Opinion text
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
CHAD ROBERT HABENICHT, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 17-0652 PRPC
FILED 2-20-2018
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 2002-017291
The Honorable John Christian Rea, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Chad Robert Habenicht, Florence
Petitioner
STATE v. HABENICHT
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James
P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.
P E R C U R I A M:
¶1 Petitioner Chad Robert Habenicht 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 the
petitioner’s 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, 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 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