State v. Roman

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
JOSE JESUS ROMAN, JR., Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0420 PRPC
FILED 9-11-2018
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2013-430684-001
The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Jose Jesus Roman, Jr., Kingman
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, and Judge
Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.
STATE v. ROMAN
Decision of the Court
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Jose Jesus Roman, Jr. 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 third,
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, 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, 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 that petitioner has not established an abuse of
discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
2