STATE v. RODREICK

 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. NEIL HAVENS RODREICK, II, Petitioner. NO. 1 CA-CR 21-0406 PRPC FILED 12-9-2021 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300CR20070142 The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott By Steven A. Young Counsel for Respondent Neil Havens Rodreick, II, Florence Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann, Judge David D. Weinzweig, and Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. RODREICK Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Neil Havens Rodreick, II seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s second petition.1 ¶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 Petitioner filed an untimely Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to State’s Response. After consideration, this motion is denied. 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.