State v. Bolin, 1 CA-CR 15-0675-PRPC

Bolin pled guilty to arson of an occupied structure (class 2 dangerous felony), agreed to restitution up to $2,500,000, and stipulated to a 10–15 year prison term; the court imposed 15 years.
After plea, superior court held a restitution hearing and ordered Bolin to pay $110,320.87 to the victims’ insurer.
Assigned PCR counsel found no colorable claims; Bolin filed a pro se Rule 32 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate/present mitigating mental-health evidence; promised a presumptive 10.5‑year sentence), ineffective assistance related to restitution/PCR counsel (failing to test restitution amount), and that his sentence exceeded the lawful aggravated maximum.
Bolin submitted minimal supporting evidence (a computer printout of an August 2012 sale price for the property) but no affidavits, medical records, or other documentation supporting mitigation or counsel errors.
The superior court summarily denied the Rule 32 petition and motion for rehearing; Bolin sought review in the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/present mitigation	Bolin: counsel failed to investigate/present mental‑health and personal history mitigation that would have reduced sentence	State: Bolin produced no affidavits/records or specifics showing prejudice or deficient performance	Denied — pleading insufficient; no evidentiary support or provable prejudice shown
Counsel promise re: presumptive sentence	Bolin: counsel promised he would receive presumptive 10.5‑year term	State: change‑of‑plea record shows Bolin stated no promises induced plea; court and prosecutor correctly advised sentencing range	Denied — record contradicts claim; defendant acknowledged advisements
Restitution amount/testing	Bolin: restitution exceeded fair market value; counsel failed to test/rest on amount	State: Bolin offered no authority or proof that plea limited restitution to fair market value; restitution awarded ($110,320.87) is within the sale price evidence	Denied — claim unsupported and restitution amount within submitted sale figure
Lawful sentence / applicable statute (§§ 13‑702 vs 13‑704(A))	Bolin: plea referenced § 13‑702, so sentencing range should be non‑dangerous‑offender range	State: Bolin pled to a dangerous felony; § 13‑704(A) (dangerous felony first‑time offender) applies; court and prosecutor advised correctly	Denied — § 13‑704(A) applies; imposed 15‑year term below 21‑year maximum

State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (standard of appellate review for PCR rulings)
State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459 (1984) (courts may affirm for any legally correct reason)
State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356 (App. 1977) (same principle of affirming correct results)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (1985) (applying Strickland standard in Arizona)
State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264 (App. 1999) (burden on petitioner to show provable reality, not speculation)
State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392 (1985) (no hearing required on mere generalizations/unsubstantiated claims)
State v. Herrera, 183 Ariz. 642 (App. 1995) (requirement to show reasonable probability outcome would differ but for counsel error)