State v. Rutledge

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JERMAINE LAMAR RUTLEDGE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0169 PRPC
FILED 5-16-2024

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR1997-005555
The Honorable Geoffrey Fish, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Julie A. Done, Vince Imbordino
Counsel for Respondent

Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix
By Natalee Segal
Counsel for Petitioner
 STATE v. RUTLEDGE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and
Michael J. Brown delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jermain Lamar Rutledge 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 Rutledge’s
third petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or legal error, this court will not
disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. See
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Petitioner has the burden to
show that the superior court erred in denying the petition for post-
conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 This court has reviewed the record in this matter, the order
denying the petition for post-conviction relief and the petition for review.
This court finds the petitioner has not established error.

¶4 This court grants review but denies relief.

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

2