Background
Robert Frances Lindley, Jr. filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. The petition was his eleventh request for post-conviction relief.
The Maricopa County Superior Court denied the petition. Lindley then petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for review of that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief. It explained that a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or legal error, and that Lindley bore the burden of showing error.
After reviewing the record, the superior court’s order, and Lindley’s petition for review, the court concluded that Lindley had not established error. The memorandum decision did not provide additional analysis of his underlying claims.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner seeking review of the denial of post-conviction relief bears the burden of establishing that the superior court erred.
- The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the denial of Lindley’s petition.
- The court granted appellate review but denied substantive relief in a nonprecedential memorandum decision.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between granting review and granting relief: an appellate court may consider a post-conviction petition while leaving the superior court’s ruling intact.
Because the court designated the decision as not for official publication, it is nonprecedential and may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).