State v. Hargous, 1 CA-CR 15--045-PRPC

Hargous entered plea agreements in multiple consolidated criminal cases and was placed on four years’ intensive probation, including a requirement to participate in inpatient drug treatment.
The state petitioned to revoke probation alleging Hargous failed to seek treatment; the court found a violation and revoked probation, imposing consecutive prison terms totaling 18 years.
On direct appeal the revocation and sentences were affirmed.
After beginning his prison term, Hargous was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder; a psychiatrist later opined the disorder likely existed at sentencing and when some crimes were committed.
Hargous filed a Rule 32 post-conviction petition claiming the post-sentencing diagnosis was newly discovered evidence warranting resentencing; the petition lacked Hargous’s own Rule 32.5 declaration, so the court ordered an amendment.
Counsel filed a declaration (not Hargous); the court dismissed the petition as noncompliant and as failing to state a colorable newly discovered evidence claim. Hargous sought leave to file a delayed declaration; the court denied it. This petition for review followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-sentencing psychiatric diagnosis is newly discovered evidence entitling resentencing	Hargous: diagnosis discovered after sentencing shows disorder existed at sentencing and likely would have led to mitigated/concurrent sentences	State: diagnosis does not qualify as newly discovered evidence because the disorder was diagnosable/recognized at sentencing; only the timing of diagnosis changed	Court: Diagnosis does not constitute newly discovered evidence because it appears to have existed and been diagnosable at sentencing; claim not colorable
Whether trial court abused discretion by dismissing petition for lack of Rule 32.5 declaration	Hargous: court should have allowed delayed filing of his own Rule 32.5 declaration	State: petition was noncompliant and lacked a colorable claim; dismissal was appropriate	Court: Declined to reach necessity of excusing the deficiency because petition failed on merits; no relief granted

State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (standard of review for Rule 32 petition rulings is abuse of discretion)
State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459 (1984) (appellate court will affirm trial court if result is legally correct for any reason)
State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356 (1977) (same principle endorsing affirmance when legally correct)
State v. Bilke, 162 Ariz. 51 (1989) (newly discovered evidence must appear to have existed at time of trial but to have been discovered thereafter; PTSD diagnosis there was treated as newly discovered because disorder was not recognized at trial)