State v. Ramirez
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
LEOBARDO LUNA RAMIREZ, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 20-0073 PRPC
FILED 6-4-2020
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 1993-006860
The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge
AFFIRMED
APPEARANCES
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Andrea L. Kever
Counsel for Respondent
Leobardo Luna Ramirez, Buckeye
Petitioner
STATE v. RAMIREZ
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.
B R O W N, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Leobardo Luna Ramirez 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
fifth 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 (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 (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 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2