State v. Fuqua

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHAEL RAY FUQUA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0260 PRPC
FILED 7-26-2022

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Navajo County
No. CR2005-0569
The Honorable Michael D. Latham, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Robert E. Prather
Counsel for Respondent

Apfel Law Group, Phoenix
By Seth Apfel
Counsel for Petitioner

STATE v. FUQUA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge
Paul J. McMurdie delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Michael Ray Fuqua 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 Fuqua’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 the 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, the petition for
review, response, and reply. We find the petitioner has not established an
abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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

2