Background
Kenneth John Falcone sought review of a Maricopa County Superior Court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1.
The petition was Falcone’s third post-conviction-relief petition. The superior court proceedings arose from case No. CR 1989-008697 before Judge James N. Drake.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, granted review but denied relief. It held that Falcone had not established that the superior court erred in denying his petition.
The court stated that a post-conviction-relief ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or legal error. After reviewing the record, the superior court’s denial order, and Falcone’s petition for review, the court found no such error.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner seeking review of the denial of Rule 32 relief bears the burden to show error.
- Appellate review of a post-conviction-relief ruling is limited to abuse of discretion or legal error.
- The court granted review of Falcone’s third petition but denied substantive relief.
Why It Matters
The memorandum decision underscores the demanding standard for overturning a superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief, particularly in successive proceedings. The decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as that rule permits.