State v. Felix
1 CA-CR 15-0736-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- Felix was convicted by a jury of discharge of a firearm at a structure, endangerment, and disorderly conduct — all dangerous felonies — and received concurrent aggravated prison sentences, the longest being 12 years.
- This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences; the mandate issued September 26, 2014 and was filed in superior court September 30, 2014.
- Felix filed a notice for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 on January 5, 2015, which was untimely under Rule 32.4(a).
- His notice asserted ineffective assistance of counsel and invoked Rule 32.1(f) (claiming untimeliness was through no fault of defendant), alleging detention-related obstacles to timely filing.
- The superior court dismissed the notice as untimely under Rule 32.2(b) for failing to set forth sufficient factual or legal bases explaining why the delay was not his fault; rehearing failed.
- This Court granted review but denied relief, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion and noting Felix raised new factual arguments for the first time on review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Felix) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have excused untimely Rule 32 notice | Felix: incarceration conditions (lockdowns, limited access) prevented timely filing; untimeliness was not his fault under Rule 32.1(f) | State/Trial Ct: Felix failed to set forth sufficient factual/legal basis in the notice to show lack of fault; dismissal proper under Rule 32.2(b) | Court: Affirmed dismissal; no abuse of discretion — notice lacked substantiation and new arguments raised on review were improper |
| Whether appellate court should consider new factual claims raised for first time on review | Felix: expanded on detention hardships and documents in petition for review | State/Trial Ct: Issues not raised below cannot be considered on appeal under Rule 32.6(d) and precedent | Court: Did not consider new arguments; appellate review limited to issues presented to trial court |
| Whether the superior court’s dismissal must be reversed for failure to address confinement difficulties | Felix: trial court overlooked confinement evidence | State/Trial Ct: Record did not contain sufficient factual support; procedural rules require strict compliance | Court: No reversible error; dismissal legally correct for any reason supported by record |
| Whether untimely notice presented meritorious, substantiated claims | Felix: claimed ineffective assistance and Rule 32.1(f) excuse | State/Trial Ct: Claims unsubstantiated in untimely filing; summary dismissal warranted under Rule 32.2(b) | Court: Notice did not present meritorious, substantiated claims; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (appellate review standard for Rule 32 rulings)
- State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (appellate courts will uphold trial court if result legally correct for any reason)
- State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356 (1977) (same principle of affirming correct trial court result)
- State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424 (2004) (mere mention of an argument is insufficient to preserve or develop it)
- State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142 (1984) (strict compliance with Rule 32 required)
- State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66 (App. 1988) (appellate courts will not consider issues not first presented to the trial court)