State v. Triste

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0231 PRPC FILED 03-02-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2002-098294 The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge, Retired REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES Daniel Triste, Florence Petitioner STATE v. TRISTE Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Veronika Fabian, and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Daniel Triste seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is Triste’s latest successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, we 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 Triste’s burden to show the superior court abused its discretion by denying his petition for post- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 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. Triste has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We therefore grant review and deny relief.

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