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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. HECTOR PAUL SOTO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0324 PRPC FILED 06-27-2024

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2020-117427-001 The Honorable Jay Ryan Adleman, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Quinton S. Gregory Counsel for Respondent Hector Paul Soto, Eloy Petitioner STATE v. SOTO Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 Hector Paul Soto petitions this court for review from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We have considered the petition for review and grant review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Soto on two counts of aggravated assault, and the trial court imposed concurrent enhanced and aggravated 14-year prison terms. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Soto’s convictions and sentences. State v. Soto, 1 CA-CR 21-0160, 2022 WL 973307, at *2, ¶ 6 (Ariz. App. Mar. 31, 2022) (mem. decision). Soto initiated PCR proceedings and the superior court appointed counsel, who found no colorable claims. Soto then filed an untimely pro se PCR petition. Despite its untimeliness, the court considered the petition and denied it mainly because Soto failed to present evidence or argument supporting his claims. This petition for review followed.

¶3 We review a denial of a Rule 32 petition based on a lack of a colorable claim for an abuse of discretion. State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 219, ¶ 9 (2016). Soto bears the burden of establishing such error. See State v. Leyva, 241 Ariz. 521, 528, ¶ 24 (App. 2017) (Relief was denied because “[petitioner] has failed to establish the trial court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief.”).

¶4 In violation of Rule 32, Soto’s petition for review presents no argument challenging the superior court’s summary dismissal of the PCR petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2)(D) (“A petition . . . for review must contain . . . reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition, including citations to supporting legal authority, if known.”). Instead, Soto recites the court’s order denying relief, followed by assertions of general legal principles. Soto’s lack of argument applying the law to the facts means he does not satisfy his burden of establishing error. See State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146 (1984) (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be

STATE v. SOTO Decision of the Court denied relief.”); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (Lack of a sufficient argument waives the claim on review.).

¶5 We grant review but deny relief.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AGFV