State v. Roque ( 2016 )

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
FRANK SILVA ROQUE, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0717 PRPC
FILED 11-15-2016
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2001-095385
The Honorable Mark F. Aceto, Retired Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Frank Silva Roque, Buckeye
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
STATE v. ROQUE
Decision of the Court
J O N E S, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Frank Silva Roque petitions this court for review
from the summary dismissal of his notice of post-conviction relief filed
August 15, 2014. Roque argues the Arizona Supreme Court erred when it
addressed a disclosure issue in his case on direct appeal in 2006. See State
v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193, 209-11, ¶¶ 41, 48-50, 52 (2006). Roque asks this court
to correct the supreme court’s opinion and order a new trial.
¶2 We deny relief because Roque has failed to present a
cognizable claim pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 or
otherwise present a colorable claim for relief. This Court has no authority
to overrule, modify, or disregard a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court.
Myers v. Reeb, 190 Ariz. 341, 342 (App. 1997) (“Whether prior decisions of
the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question for that
court.”) (quoting City of Phx. v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., 177 Ariz. 375, 378 (App.
1993)).
¶3 We grant review but deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2