State v. Lindley

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERT FRANCES LINDLEY, JR., Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0331 PRPC
FILED 01-14-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR1989-009011
The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

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

Robert Frances Lindley, Jr., Buckeye
Petitioner
 STATE v. LINDLEY
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett, Judge Daniel J. Kiley, and Judge David
D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Robert Frances Lindley, Jr. seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This
is 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, and the petition
for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of
discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.

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

2