NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE 

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

QURIAN VERE ROBERSON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0160 PRPC 

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR 2002-095105 

The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge 

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED 

COUNSEL 

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix 

By Diane M. Meloche 

Counsel for Respondent

Qurian Vere Roberson, Buckeye 

Petitioner
STATE v. ROBERSON 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Acting Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. 

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner, Qurian Vere Roberson (“Roberson”), petitions this 

court for review of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction 

deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) testing pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-4240 (2010).1 We have considered the petition 

for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief. 

¶2 In December 2002, a jury convicted Roberson of misconduct 

involving weapons, two counts of armed robbery, and three counts of 

aggravated assault. This court affirmed his convictions and original 

sentences on direct appeal. After a successful petition for post-conviction 

relief, the trial court resentenced Roberson to an aggregate term of 31.5 

years’ imprisonment, and this court again affirmed his sentences. 

¶3 In his fourth post-conviction proceeding since resentencing, 

Roberson sought post-conviction DNA testing of a ski mask, assault rifle, 

and bullets used in the course of the robbery. Roberson argued DNA tests 

on those items might reveal the presence of the DNA of another person and, 

in turn, prove Roberson was not the person who robbed the victims. The 

trial court denied the petition, and Roberson now seeks review. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c) and 

A.R.S. § 13-4239(C) (2010). We review the denial of post-conviction relief 

for an abuse of discretion. State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433, 441, 719 P.2d 1049, 

1057 (1986). 

¶4 Roberson sought DNA testing pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4240(B) 

and (C). Subsection (B) provides in pertinent part that a trial court “shall”

order DNA testing if the court finds “[a] reasonable probability exists that 

the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory 

results had been obtained through [DNA] testing.” A.R.S. § 13-4240(B)(1). 

 

1 Section 13-4240 is contained within the Article 29 Post-Conviction 

Relief provisions of the Criminal Code. 
STATE v. ROBERSON 

Decision of the Court 

3

Subsection (C) provides in pertinent part that the trial court “may” order 

DNA testing if the court finds a reasonable probability exists that “[t]he 

petitioner’s verdict or sentence would have been more favorable if the 

results of [DNA] testing had been available at the trial leading to the 

judgment of conviction” or “[DNA] testing will produce exculpatory 

evidence.” A.R.S. § 13-4240(C)(1)(a)-(b).2

¶5 We deny relief because there is no reasonable probability the 

State would not have prosecuted Roberson or that a jury would not have 

convicted Roberson even if testing of the items revealed the presence of 

DNA from another person or the absence of Roberson’s DNA. Nor would 

the verdicts or sentences have been more favorable if the results of 

favorable DNA testing had been available at trial, and no reasonable 

probability exists that DNA testing would produce exculpatory evidence. 

The absence of Roberson’s DNA would not mean that Roberson did not 

wear the mask or handle the rifle; likewise, the presence of someone else’s 

DNA would not mean that Roberson did not wear the mask or handle the 

rifle.

¶6 More importantly, the evidence of Roberson’s guilt was 

overwhelming. Roberson robbed a family on the street at gunpoint and 

took eighty-seven dollars from them. The victims could not see Roberson’s 

face because he wore the ski mask. The husband, however, immediately 

began to chase Roberson on foot as Roberson ran from the scene. Within 

moments, and while Roberson was still in sight, the husband and wife 

signaled a passing police car, told the officer they had just been robbed, and 

pointed to the fleeing Roberson. The officer saw Roberson “running at full 

speed” from the scene and pursued Roberson in his car. When the officer 

caught Roberson a short distance later, he recognized Roberson as the 

person running from the scene. The husband watched as the officer 

pursued and apprehended Roberson and never lost sight of the officer or 

Roberson. Despite the fact Roberson wore a mask, the victims identified 

Roberson as the robber at the scene based on his clothing, shoes, height, 

build, and ethnicity. Further, Roberson possessed eighty-seven dollars, the 

 

2 The State did not file a response in the trial court or in this court. 

Therefore, we assume arguendo that Roberson satisfied the other factors 

necessary to either require or permit DNA testing. See A.R.S. § 13-

4240(B)(2)-(3), (C)(2)-(3) (requiring that the evidence must still exist, must 

be in a condition to permit DNA testing, and must not have been previously 

subjected to DNA testing in general or the specific DNA testing requested 

if that specific test will resolve an issue not previously resolved by previous 

testing).
STATE v. ROBERSON 

Decision of the Court 

4

exact amount he took from the victims. Finally, Roberson attempted to 

conceal his ski mask by lying on top of it when the police officer ordered 

him to the ground. The officer found the mask under Roberson when 

Roberson arose from the ground after his arrest. The victims identified the 

mask as the mask worn by the robber. Police officers found the assault rifle 

used in the robbery on the ground twenty to thirty feet from Roberson. 

Based on this evidence, there is no reasonable probability the State would 

not have prosecuted Roberson or a jury would not have convicted 

Roberson, even if testing of the items revealed the presence of DNA from 

another person or the absence of Roberson’s DNA.

¶7 Although the petition for review presents a number of 

additional issues, Roberson did not raise those issues in the petition for 

post-conviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present 

issues not first presented to the trial court. See State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 

577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 

1130, 1135 (App. 1988), approved as modified, 164 Ariz. 485, 493, 794 P.2d 118, 

126 (1990); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). Further, Roberson could have raised those 

issues in previous post-conviction relief proceedings. In general, any claim 

a defendant could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief 

proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). 

¶8 For the above reasons, we grant review and deny relief.