State v. Thomas
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
MEL ANTHONY THOMAS, Petitioner.
NO. 1 CA-CR 21-0324 PRPC
FILED 12-9-2021
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2008-117918-001
The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent
Mel Anthony Thomas, Tucson
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann, Judge David D. Weinzweig, and Judge
Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court.
STATE v. THOMAS
Decision of the Court
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Mel Anthony Thomas seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s fourth 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