State v. Ramos

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANGEL C RAMOS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0151 PRPC
FILED 02-25-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2015-150831-001
The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Christine A. Davis
Counsel for Respondent

Angel C. Ramos, Eloy
Petitioner
 STATE v. RAMOS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe, and
Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Angel Ramos seeks review of the superior court’s
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s
second successive 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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of
establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter1, 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.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

1 We have considered Petitioner’s filing entitled “Judicial Notice of
Adjudicative Facts A.R.E. Rule 201,” which the court deems as a motion to
supplement the record and accordingly denies.

2