STATE v. ROZENMAN

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. DIMITRI ROZENMAN, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 16-0722 PRPC FILED 12-7-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2009-007039-001 The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED APPEARANCES Dimitri Rozenman, Tucson Petitioner Sanders & Parks, P.C. By J. Arthur Eaves, Robin E. Burgess Co-Counsel for Respondent STATE v. ROZENMAN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge James P. Beene, Judge Randall M. Howe and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the following decision. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Dimitri Rozenman 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 Petitioner’s first petition for post-conviction relief after direct appeal. ¶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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (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 that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2