State v. Coronel-Rodriguez
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Perez 687 P.2d 1214
Opinion text
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 ANTONIO CORONEL-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 24-0510 PRPC
FILED 07-29-2025
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2007-007126-001
The Honorable Kerstin G. LeMaire, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent
Jose Antonio Coronel-Rodriguez, Buckeye
Petitioner Pro Se
STATE v. CORONEL-RODRIGUEZ
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya, Chief Judge Randall M. Howe, and Judge
David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Jose Antonio Coronel-Rodriguez petitions this Court for
review from the dismissal of his third petition for post-conviction relief. We
have considered his petition and grant review but deny relief.
¶2 We review the superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-
conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes
an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to
support its decision.” State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 407 ¶ 6 (2021). It is the
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). We will affirm the trial court’s ruling if legally correct
for any reason. See State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 464 (1984).
¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior
court’s order dismissing 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.
MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR
2