State v. Irizarry

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
DAIMEN JOSEPH IRIZARRY, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0116 PRPC
FILED 10-31-2019
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2010-106178-001
The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent
Shell & Nermyr, P.L.L.C., Chandler
By Charles K. Shell
Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. IRIZARRY
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge Diane
M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court.
P E R C U R I A M:
¶1 Daimen Irizarry seeks review of the superior court’s order
dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona
Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s second successive
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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s
burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the
petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).
¶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 the petitioner has not shown any abuse of
discretion.
¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2