STATE v. JIMINEZ

 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. ADAN TAVIZON JIMENEZ, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 20-0239 PRPC FILED 9-24-2020 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2000-019168 The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent Adan Tavison Jimenez, Florence Petitioner STATE v. JIMENEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann1 delivered the decision of the Court. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Adan Tavison Jimenez 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 ninth 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, ¶ 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 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 Chief Judge Peter B. Swann replaces the Honorable Kenton D. Jones, who was originally assigned to this panel. 1 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.