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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0328 PRPC FILED 04-24-2025 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 1994-010747 The Honorable Sunita Cairo, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Johnny Jacquez Counsel for Respondent Mitchell Stein Carey Champman, PC, Phoenix By Barry D. Mitchell, Kathleen E. Brody Co-Counsel for Petitioner Post-Conviction Clinic Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Phoenix By Randal McDonald, Robert J. Dormady, Andi Humphreys, Jill Logan (certified limited practice student) Co-Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. SIMENTAL Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge D.

Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Christy Simental seeks review of the superior court's order denying her petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner's fifth successive petition that is suitable for review. See State v. Simental, 2 CA-CR 2020-0163-PR, 2020 WL 5807513 (Ariz. App. Sept. 30, 2020) (mem. decision) (denying review for failure to comply with rules governing post-conviction relief petitions).

¶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 We grant review and deny relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR