Subject to the limitations of section 13-4232, any person who has been convicted of or sentenced for a criminal offense may, without payment of any fee, institute a proceeding to secure appropriate relief on any of the following grounds:
1. The conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of this state.
2. The court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.
3. The sentence imposed exceeded the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law.
4. The person is being held in custody after his sentence has expired.
5. Newly discovered material facts probably exist and that the facts probably would have changed the verdict or sentence. Newly discovered material facts exist if:
(a) The newly discovered material facts were discovered after the trial.
(b) The defendant exercised due diligence in securing the newly discovered material facts.
(c) The newly discovered material facts are not merely cumulative or used solely for impeachment, unless the impeachment evidence substantially undermines testimony which was of critical significance at trial such that the evidence probably would have changed the verdict or sentence.
6. The defendant's failure to appeal from the judgment or sentence, or both, within the prescribed time was without fault on his part.
7. There has been a significant change in the law that if determined to apply to the defendant's case would probably overturn the defendant's conviction or sentence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case:
State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996).
State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996).
· cites it 12× “A.R.S. §§ 13-4231 to 13-4240 and Rule 32, Ariz.”
State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 22× “Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-4231 to 13-4240, except for the time limitations, are for the most part similar to the post-conviction relief procedures found in Rule 32, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, promulgated prior to said statutes.”
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez, 278 P.3d 1276 (Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 2× “And subsection (K) seems to contemplate that a court generally will consider any appropriate relief based on favorable DNA test results under the postconvietion statutes, AR.S. §§ 13-4231 to -4239, and Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
State v. Baca, 926 P.2d 528 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “1, and subsections (1), (2), and (5) of section 13-4231, also relating to grounds for vacating a judgment, yields the same result.”
State v. Garcia, 731 P.2d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-4231(7) provides a petition for post-conviction relief is appropriate where “[tjhere has been a significant change in the law which if applied retroactively would beyond a reasonable doubt overturn petitioner’s conviction.”
State v. Cummings, 716 P.2d 45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “THE PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4231 and Rule 32 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.”
State v. Rendon, 776 P.2d 353 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4231 and Ariz. R.Crim.P. 32, 17 A.”
State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin, 365 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “1(f) provides that a notice may be considered timely if “[t]he defendant’s failure to file a notice of post-conviction relief of-right or notice of appeal within the prescribed time was without fault on the defendant’s part” 7 See also A.”
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles, 414 P.3d 680 (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 6× “¶ 27 I write separately because I find problematic the rule under which the PCR court granted relief, Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(h). That rule, which has no constitutional or statutory counterpart, was added by this Court in 2000.”
State v. Aguilar, 823 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “1; see also A.R.S. § 13-4231. It also provides for notice to a prosecuting attorney, when the conviction occurs in a court other than superior court: “If the conviction occurred in a court other than the superior court, the copy shall be sent to the office of the prosecuting…”
State v. Bejarano, 762 P.2d 540 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 2× “After the ruling by the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed a petition for review by this court pursuant to Rule 32.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4231(1) — 2 cases
State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996).
“A.R.S. §§ 13-4231 to 13-4240 and Rule 32, Ariz.”
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles, 414 P.3d 680 (Ariz. 2018).
“¶ 27 I write separately because I find problematic the rule under which the PCR court granted relief, Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(h). That rule, which has no constitutional or statutory counterpart, was added by this Court in 2000.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4231(1)(7) — 1 case
State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996).
“A.R.S. §§ 13-4231 to 13-4240 and Rule 32, Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4231(3) — 1 case
State v. Baca, 926 P.2d 528 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“1, and subsections (1), (2), and (5) of section 13-4231, also relating to grounds for vacating a judgment, yields the same result.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4231(5) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles, 414 P.3d 680 (Ariz. 2018).
“¶ 27 I write separately because I find problematic the rule under which the PCR court granted relief, Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(h). That rule, which has no constitutional or statutory counterpart, was added by this Court in 2000.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4231(5)(b) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles, 414 P.3d 680 (Ariz. 2018).
“¶ 27 I write separately because I find problematic the rule under which the PCR court granted relief, Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(h). That rule, which has no constitutional or statutory counterpart, was added by this Court in 2000.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4231(6) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin, 365 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“1(f) provides that a notice may be considered timely if “[t]he defendant’s failure to file a notice of post-conviction relief of-right or notice of appeal within the prescribed time was without fault on the defendant’s part” 7 See also A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4231(7) — 1 case
State v. Garcia, 731 P.2d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“A.R.S. § 13-4231(7) provides a petition for post-conviction relief is appropriate where “[tjhere has been a significant change in the law which if applied retroactively would beyond a reasonable doubt overturn petitioner’s conviction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.