State v. Bartha

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ERIC ANDREW BARTHA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0021 PRPC
FILED 6-29-2023

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2015-117990-001
CR2016-000855-001
The Honorable Adam D. Driggs, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Faith Cheree Klepper
Counsel for Respondent

Grand Canyon Law Group, LLC, Mesa
By Angela Charlene Poliquin
Counsel for Petitioner
 STATE v. BARTHA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge
David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Eric Andrew Bartha 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 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: AA

2