State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson, 547 P.3d 345

Larry Dean Anderson was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and sentenced in 2000 to life in prison without the possibility of release for 25 years.
Anderson’s attorney at trial advised him that he would be eligible for parole after serving 25 years, but Arizona had abolished parole for offenses committed after January 1, 1994.
Anderson filed two prior post-conviction relief (PCR) petitions (2000, 2003) on unrelated grounds; both were denied.
In 2022, Anderson filed a new PCR claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) due to the attorney’s incorrect advice about parole eligibility, which caused him to reject an alleged plea offer (18-22 years).
Due to widespread confusion about parole, Anderson only recently discovered he was not parole-eligible.
The trial and appellate courts denied the claim as untimely and precluded, but the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to address the unique circumstances.

Issue	Anderson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Timeliness of PCR claim	Not at fault—widespread confusion on parole	Delay unexcused; claim should have been earlier	Claim timely; Anderson not at fault for delay due to legal confusion
Preclusion of PCR claim	Could not have raised IAC claim before, unknown basis	Claim waived, could have been earlier	Not precluded; claim’s basis only recently discoverable
Ineffective assistance - deficient advice	Attorney’s incorrect advice = deficient performance	Attorney followed professional norms, not unreasonable	Performance was deficient—even if error was widespread
Colorable claim for evidentiary hearing	Presented evidence (letters) of possible plea offer	No record of offer; no colorable claim	Sufficient evidence for hearing; remand for evidentiary hearing on plea offer issue

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must inform clients of clear legal consequences of pleas)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (erroneous legal advice during plea negotiations can constitute deficient performance)
State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (erroneous legal advice about plea deals is deficient under Strickland)
State v. Miller, 251 Ariz. 99 (representation may be unreasonable even if error is widespread)
State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217 (colorable PCR claims merit evidentiary hearings)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (adopts Strickland in Arizona)
State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540 (Strickland applied to trial ineffectiveness)