State v. Triste - Arizona Court of Appeals Non-Precedential Opinion
Summary
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued a non-precedential decision in State v. Triste, concerning a petition for post-conviction relief. The court reviewed the superior court's order denying the petition and found no abuse of discretion.
What changed
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, issued a non-precedential memorandum decision in State v. Triste, docket number 1 CA-CR 25-0231 PRPC, filed on March 2, 2026. The court reviewed the superior court's denial of Daniel Triste's petition for post-conviction relief, which was described as his latest successive petition.
In this decision, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling, stating that Triste failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. The court granted review but denied relief. As this is a non-precedential opinion, it may only be cited as authorized by Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c). No specific compliance actions or deadlines are imposed on regulated entities by this ruling.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
State v. Triste
Court of Appeals of Arizona
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 25-0231 PRPC
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Combined Opinion
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
2
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Arizona Court of Appeals publishes new changes.