STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. DANIEL A. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 17-0162 PRPC FILED 1-4-2018 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2014-107713-001 The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent Daniel A. Rodriguez, Florence Petitioner STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the following decision. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Daniel Rodriguez 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 Rodriguez’s first, timely petition for post-conviction relief. ¶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