State v. Shine

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LEE PENNELL SHINE, JR., Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0459 PRPC
FILED 5-7-2020

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-005450-002
The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Daniel Strange
Counsel for Respondent

Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix
By Natalee E. Segal
Counsel for Petitioner

STATE v. SHINE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Lee Pennell Shine, Jr. 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 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 (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,
538, ¶ 1 (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. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse
of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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

2