State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Lopez, 234 Ariz. 513

In 2007 Steven Lopez pled guilty to two counts of second-degree murder and received consecutive 18-year terms.
In 2012 Lopez filed a Rule 32 post-conviction notice claiming his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he was not informed he would be subject to community supervision after prison.
Lopez argued Jenkins (193 Ariz. 115) improperly requires a "but-for" materiality showing to overturn a plea when punitive consequences were not disclosed, and that Stewart (202 Ariz. 446) allowed raising such constitutional claims regardless of timeliness.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found Lopez had not been properly informed of community supervision, but concluded his failure to timely seek post-conviction relief was not without fault and that he would have pled guilty even if informed.
The trial court denied relief; Lopez petitioned this court for review, arguing Jenkins is contrary to federal law and Stewart should excuse the Rule 32.4(a) timeliness bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lopez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Applicability of Stewart to toll or excuse Rule 32.4(a) timeliness	Stewart allows constitutional claims to be raised regardless of timeliness because waiver inquiry depends on the right, not the claim's merits	Stewart addresses waiver/preclusion under Rule 32.2, not the jurisdictional timeliness rule 32.4(a); timeliness is separate and jurisdictional	Stewart does not apply to Rule 32.4(a); timeliness requirements are jurisdictional and not excused by Stewart
Whether Jenkins' materiality/"but-for" causation requirement is improper	Jenkins improperly requires a but-for showing when punitive consequences were not disclosed; due process requires disclosure regardless of materiality	Jenkins remains the correct standard to determine whether lack of disclosure affected the plea decision (i.e., materiality)	Court did not reach Jenkins challenge because Lopez's claim is time-barred under Rule 32.4(a)
Whether Lopez's late notice was "without fault" under Rule 32.1(f)	Lopez contended he was entitled to excuse of lateness (argued below but abandoned on review)	Trial court found Lopez was at fault for failing to timely file; State relied on that finding	Lopez failed to show his untimely filing was without fault; claim dismissed as time-barred

State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (standard of review for appellate review of Rule 32 rulings)
State v. Jenkins, 193 Ariz. 115 (App. 1998) (materiality/causation standard for undisclosed consequences of a plea)
Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446 (Ariz. 2002) (waiver/preclusion under Rule 32.2 depends on the particular right alleged, not claim merits)
State v. Smith, 171 Ariz. 501 (App. 1992) (timely filing of notices is jurisdictional for appeals)
State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459 (1984) (appellate court will affirm trial court if result is legally correct for any reason)