State v. Strickland

── State v. Strickland ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. BRADLEY WAYNE STRICKLAND, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0280 PRPC FILED 04-30-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1994-000004 The Honorable Geoffrey H. Fish, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Bradley Wayne Strickland, Buckeye Petitioner  STATE v. STRICKLAND Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Bradley Wayne Strickland seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s second 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. See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576–77 ¶ 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) (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. MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR 2