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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

DAVID ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0588 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. V1300CR201080330

The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott

By Sheila Sullivan Polk

Counsel for Respondent

David Antonio Rodriguez, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

FILED 7-26-2022
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner David Antonio Rodriguez petitions this court for 

review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have 

considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated below, grant 

review and deny relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In July 2010, the State charged Rodriguez with multiple

counts of both sexual conduct with his girlfriend’s minor daughter, Y., and

possessing child pornography. Rodriguez pled guilty to two counts of 

sexual conduct with a minor under 15 years old and five counts of attempt 

to commit commercial sexual exploitation of a minor under 15 years old. 

On January 31, 2012, the superior court sentenced Rodriguez to consecutive 

15-year flat sentences followed by lifetime probation.

¶3 Rodriguez initiated timely post-conviction relief proceedings

on April 24, 2012. Rodriguez checked newly discovered evidence as a 

ground for relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(e). Appointed counsel found 

no viable claims for relief and requested an extension to allow Rodriguez to

file a pro se petition, which was granted. Rodriguez failed to file a petition

and the State moved for the proceedings to be dismissed. On January 22, 

2013, the court granted the dismissal.

¶4 Rodriguez filed a successive, untimely notice requesting postconviction relief over eight years later on January 11, 2021. Rodriguez filed 

a pro-per petition for post-conviction relief on June 11, 2021, and was 

appointed counsel who filed a supplement to the petition on the same date. 

After finding that Rodriguez was represented by counsel, however, the 

court struck his brief, and appointed counsel withdrew the supplement. 

Appointed counsel then found no viable claims for relief and Rodriguez

filed an amended pro se petition (“amended petition”) shortly thereafter. 

The State responded and the court denied the petition. This petition for 

review followed.

DISCUSSION

¶5 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb the trial court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). The petitioner bears the 

burden of establishing an abuse of discretion. State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 

538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). Rodriguez has failed to show an abuse of discretion.
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 On review, Rodriguez contends that the superior court did 

not review the amended petition, but only struck the June 11th petition. 

Thus, he contends, the court did not address his claim that perjury during 

the grand jury proceedings constituted newly discovered evidence. 

Contrary to Rodriguez’s claims, the superior court clearly identified that it 

reviewed and denied the amended petition only. In a footnote, the court 

also explained why it struck the June 11th petitions. Furthermore, the court 

gave detailed reasons for denying Rodriguez’s perjury claim as newly 

discovered evidence.

¶7 As for the merits of Rodriguez’s perjury argument which he 

attempts to raise on review, the issue is precluded and waived. Although 

claims of newly discovered evidence are not automatically precluded in a 

successive or untimely proceeding, “the defendant must explain the 

reasons for not raising the claim in a previous notice or petition, or for not 

raising the claim in a timely manner.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b)(1). 

Rodriguez fails to adequately explain why it took over seven years to obtain 

his case file and begin the present proceedings. Rodriguez also fails to cite 

to relevant authority or develop the argument in a meaningful way. See 

State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, 158, ¶ 16 (App. 2013). Finally, by pleading 

guilty, Rodriguez waived all non-jurisdictional defenses, including any and 

all defenses, errors, and defects that occurred prior to the plea. See State v. 

Quick, 177 Ariz. 314, 316 (App. 1993). Rodriguez fails to raise a colorable 

claim.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We grant review and deny relief.