State v. Engram

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

WAYNE ENGRAM, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0221 PRPC
FILED 9-17-2020

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2016-160582-001
The Honorable Ronda R. Fisk, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent

Wayne Randal Engram, San Luis
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge David B. Gass, and Judge
Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.

STATE v. ENGRAM
Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Wayne Joseph Engram 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. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.

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

2