Court Opinion

ID: 4275235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-15 15:04:39.18616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:11.354829
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                           FAVIO ROJAS, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 17-0824 PRPC
                               FILED 5-15-2018

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2013-004779-001
             The Honorable Phemonia L. Miller, Commissioner

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Counsel for Respondent

Favio Rojas, Florence
Petitioner
                             STATE v. ROJAS
                            Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James
P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I U M:

¶1          Petitioner Favio Rojas seeks review of the superior court’s
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1.

¶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.
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s
burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the
petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶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 shown an abuse of discretion.

¶4            Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

                                         2