State v. Dover

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMES JOSEPH DOVER, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0340 PRPC
FILED 02-03-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-159328-001, CR2012-007830-001
The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

James Joseph Dover, Yuma
Petitioner

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Andrew J. Becke, and Judge
Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.
 STATE v. DOVER
Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner James Joseph Dover seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s third petition in CR2012-159328 and second petition in
CR2012-007830.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, we 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)
(noting that the petitioner has the 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 relief, and the petition for review. We
find that the petitioner has not established that the superior court abused
its discretion by finding that Dover’s successive PCR petitions did not
establish any colorable claims for relief.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

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

2