State v. Simental

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

2