State v. Ntiamoah

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ABRAHAM NTIAMOAH, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0246 PRPC
FILED 03-04-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2013-458352-001
The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Philip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Abraham Ntiamoah, Florence
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.
 STATE v. NTIAMOAH
Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Abraham Ntiamoah seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s third 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 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.

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

2