State v. Esposito

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RALPH FRANK ESPOSITO, JR., Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0536 PRPC
FILED 3-31-2022

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. CR2014-001312-001 and CR2013-442655-001
The Honorable Kerstin G. LeMaire, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

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

Ralph Frank Esposito, Jr., Tucson
Petitioner

STATE v. ESPOSITO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Ralph Esposito 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 the petitioner’s fifth
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, and the petition
for review. 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: AA

2