State v. Muldrow

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOE FRANKLIN MULDROW, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0088 PRPC
FILED 9-8-2022

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2016-005720-002
CR2016-005710-002
CR2013-111024-001
The Honorable William R. Wingard, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Krista Wood
Counsel for Respondent

Joe Franklin Muldrow, Eloy
Petitioner
 STATE v. MULDROW
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Peter
B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Joe Franklin Muldrow seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. 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, ¶ 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 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