State v. Arcineiga-Rangel

• Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 23-0227 PRPC
• Decision Date: 25 January 2024
• Parties: STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. HILDEFONSO ARCINEIGA-RANGEL, Petitioner.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. HILDEFONSO ARCINEIGA-RANGEL, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0227 PRPC

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

January 25, 2024

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2004-019648-001 DT The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge

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

Hildefonso Arcineiga-Rangel, Buckeye Petitioner

2

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, and Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM

¶1 Petitioner Hildefonso Arcineiga-Rangel seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is his 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, 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.