Court Opinion

ID: 9909861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:02:24.229152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:15.647150
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      JOSE JESUS ROMAN JR., Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 23-0195 PRPC
                               FILED 12-12-2023

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CR2013-430684-001
                   The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Robert E. Prather
Counsel for Respondent

Jose Jesus Roman Jr., Kingman
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, and Judge
Brian Y Furuya delivered the decision of the Court.
                             STATE v. ROMAN
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Jose Jesus Roman Jr. 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. This is his fifth 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.
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 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, petition for review,
response, and reply. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4            For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.

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

                                          2