State v. Katial
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
SUNIL CHANDRA KATIAL, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0071 PRPC
FILED 6-14-2018
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-048184-001
The Honorable John R. Ditsworth, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Law Offices of Robert J. McWhirter
By Robert J. McWhirter
Counsel for Petitioner
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
STATE v. KATIAL
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 U M:
¶1 Petitioner Sunil Chandra Katial 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 third
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 petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion.
¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2