State v. Lee

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

HAI VA LEE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0138 PRPC
FILED 6-4-2020

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 2001-015185
The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Andrea L. Kever
Counsel for Respondent

Hai Va Lee, Buckeye
Petitioner

STATE v. LEE
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 Hai Va Lee 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 seventh
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, the petition for
review, and the notice of supplemental authority. 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