Court Opinion

ID: 4439688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-19 16:02:05.390301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:37.800679
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      FRANCISCO ROSARIO, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 19-0102 PRPC
                              FILED 9-19-2019

               Petition for Review from the Maricopa County
                           No. CR2012-149642-001
                   The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Andrea L. Kever
Counsel for Respondent

Francisco Rosario, Florence
Petitioner
                             STATE v. ROSARIO
                             Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Chief Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge
Samuel A. Thumma delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Francisco Rosario 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 Rosario’s first 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 the 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 the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4            We grant review but deny relief.

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

                                         2