State v. McCormack

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ADAM CHRISTOPHER MCCORMACK, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0052 PRPC
FILED 5-25-2023

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Apache County
No. CR2019-0134

The Honorable Donna J. Grimsley, Judge (retired)
The Honorable Michael Latham, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Apache County Attorney’s Office, St. Johns
By Michael B. Whiting
Counsel for Respondent

E.M. Hale Law, PLLC, Lakeside
By Elizabeth M. Hale
Counsel for Petitioner
 STATE v. MCCORMACK
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge
Michael S. Catlett delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Adam Christopher McCormack seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed
pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. 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 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