State v. Simmons

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LAMAR VALDEN SIMMONS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0547 PRPC
FILED 07-16-2024

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 1987-001119
The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Douglas Gerlach
Counsel for Respondent

Lamar Valden Simmons, Florence
Petitioner
 STATE v. SIMMONS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, and Judge
David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Lamar Simmons seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is the
petitioner’s eighth 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, 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, the petition for
review, and the response and reply. We find that the petitioner has not
established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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

2