State v. Eddy

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DENNIS PAUL EDDY, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0452 PRPC
FILED 4-7-2020

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County
No. CR84-010749
No. CR85-011929
The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Respondent

Dennis Paul Eddy, Safford
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge
David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court.
 STATE v. EDDY
Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Dennis Paul Eddy (Eddy) petitions this court for review from
the dismissal of his request for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32.1 This is Eddy’s tenth Rule 32 petition. See, e.g., State
v. Eddy, 1 CA-CR 17-0488 PRPC, 2018 WL 947736 (App. Feb. 20, 2018). Eddy
has also filed five previous habeas petitions. See, e.g., Eddy v. State, 1 CA-HC
17-0006, 2018 WL 3731000 (App. July 31, 2018).

¶2 In 1986, a jury convicted Eddy of first-degree burglary,
aggravated assault, weapons misconduct, criminal damage, and theft of
firearms. Id. At the time of these criminal acts, Eddy was in parole custody
of the Arizona Department of Corrections. See Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz.
427, 428 (1990). The superior court sentenced Eddy to the maximum term
of incarceration for each offense.

¶3 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.
See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). Eddy bears the burden
of showing the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition
for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App.
2011).

¶4 This court has reviewed the record, the superior court’s order
denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition for review.
Eddy’s petition fails to raise a colorable claim, largely repeating arguments
previously considered and dismissed. Because Eddy has not shown an
abuse of discretion, this court grants review and denies relief.

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

1 New rules governing post-conviction relief went into effect January 1,

2020. See Ariz. S. Ct. Order No. R-19-0012 (Aug. 29, 2019). Because Eddy’s
petition was filed and decided by the superior court before January 1, 2020,
this court cites to the rule then in effect.

2