State v. Van Daalen
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
- 260 P.3d 1102 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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
DANIEL ADEM VAN DAALEN, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 21-0117 PRPC
FILED 8-31-2021
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2002-019041
The Honorable Timothy J. Ryan, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Daniel Strange
Counsel for Respondent
Daniel Adem Van Daalen, Tucson
Petitioner
STATE v. VAN DAALEN
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge
Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Daniel Adem Van Daalen seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This
is petitioner’s fourth 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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (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 and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2