Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232 (2026)

Preclusion of post-conviction relief; exceptions; proof

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A defendant is precluded from relief under this article based on any ground:

1. Still raisable on direct appeal or on a post-trial motion.

2. Finally adjudicated on the merits on appeal or in any previous collateral proceeding.

3. That was waived at trial, on appeal or in any previous collateral proceeding.

B. This section does not apply to claims for relief pursuant to section 13-4231, paragraph 4, 5, 6 or 7. If a claim under section 13-4231, paragraph 4, 5, 6 or 7 is to be raised in a successive or untimely petition, the notice shall set forth the substance of the claim and the reasons for not raising the claim in the previous petition or in a timely manner. If the notice does not state meritorious reasons substantiating the claim and why the claim was not stated in the previous petition or in a timely manner, the proceeding shall be summarily dismissed.

C. Except for summary dismissals pursuant to subsection B of this section, the state shall plead and prove any ground of preclusion by a preponderance of the evidence. Though the state has the burden to plead and prove grounds of preclusion, any court on review of the record may determine and hold that an issue is precluded regardless of the state's failure to raise the preclusion issue.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 21× “He did not set forth with particularity the issues not precluded under A.R.S. § 13-4232. Instead, defendant merely included a conclusory paragraph at the end of his seventeen-page motion to stay which read: "These claims are not precluded because they rest upon either newly…”
State v. Conner, 786 P.2d 948 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 6× “2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and A.R.S. § 13-4232 are substantially identical—both deal with preclusion in post-conviction matters.”
State v. Curtis, 912 P.2d 1341 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 18× “[5] The Arizona legislature recently amended A.R.S. § 13-4232, Rule 32's statutory counterpart, to provide that, "[t]hough the state has the burden to plead and prove grounds of preclusion, any court on review of the record may determine and hold that an issue is precluded…”
State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “§§ 13-4232(A)(4), 13-4234(A), and 13-4234(F) unconstitutionally invade the procedural rulemaking authority of the Arizona Supreme Court? The questioned statutes read as follows: § 13-4232. A. A petitioner shall not be given relief under this article based on any ground: * * * *…”
State v. Swoopes, 166 P.3d 945 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “¶5 Finding Swoopes’s IAC and related claims precluded, we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling otherwise and in granting him post-eonvietion relief.”
State v. MacIas, 469 P.3d 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(3); Ariz. R. Crim. P.”
Michael Emerson CORRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry L. STEWART, Dir., Arizona Dep't of Corr., Respondent-Appellee, 137 F.3d 1404 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 13-4240, leaves Judge Howe’s order without any state procedural support: the other statute Judge Howe cited, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4232, continues in force and provides a state-law basis for Judge Howe’s finding of preclusion and waiver.”
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina, 306 P.3d 48 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 2× “” See also A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(3); Ariz. R.Crim. P. 32.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger, 492 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. 2021). “Similarly, in Fowler, the court of appeals held that provisions of § 13-4232 and § 13-4234 unconstitutionally infringed on this Court’s rulemaking authority, as the statutory one-year time limit applicable to filing PCR petitions conflicted with the limits in Rule 32.”
Steven James v Charles L. Ryan, 679 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “” See also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232 (A)(3). The Arizona Supreme Court denied review.”
State v. Garcia, 731 P.2d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “2(a)(3), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(3) and (4). However, both Rule 32 and the statutes contain a specific exception to the general rule of preclusion where there has been a “signifi *247 cant change in the law” justifying retroactive application.”
State v. Espinosa, 29 P.3d 278 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-4232(C) (“Though the state has the burden to plead and prove grounds of preclusion, any court on review of the record may determine and hold that an issue is precluded regardless of *505 the state’s failure to raise the preclusion issue.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232(0) — 1 case
State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996). “He did not set forth with particularity the issues not precluded under A.R.S. § 13-4232. Instead, defendant merely included a conclusory paragraph at the end of his seventeen-page motion to stay which read: "These claims are not precluded because they rest upon either newly…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232(A) — 2 cases
State v. Curtis, 912 P.2d 1341 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “[5] The Arizona legislature recently amended A.R.S. § 13-4232, Rule 32's statutory counterpart, to provide that, "[t]hough the state has the burden to plead and prove grounds of preclusion, any court on review of the record may determine and hold that an issue is precluded…”
Michael Emerson CORRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry L. STEWART, Dir., Arizona Dep't of Corr., Respondent-Appellee, 137 F.3d 1404 (9th Cir. 1998). “§ 13-4240, leaves Judge Howe’s order without any state procedural support: the other statute Judge Howe cited, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4232, continues in force and provides a state-law basis for Judge Howe’s finding of preclusion and waiver.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232(A)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996). “He did not set forth with particularity the issues not precluded under A.R.S. § 13-4232. Instead, defendant merely included a conclusory paragraph at the end of his seventeen-page motion to stay which read: "These claims are not precluded because they rest upon either newly…”
Doub BINFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William RHODE; Grant Woods, Attorney Gen., Respondents-Appellees, 116 F.3d 396 (9th Cir. 1997).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232(A)(3) — 5 cases
State v. MacIas, 469 P.3d 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(3); Ariz. R. Crim. P.”
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina, 306 P.3d 48 (Ariz. 2013). “” See also A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(3); Ariz. R.Crim. P. 32.”
State v. Conner, 786 P.2d 948 (Ariz. 1990). “2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and A.R.S. § 13-4232 are substantially identical—both deal with preclusion in post-conviction matters.”
State v. Garcia, 731 P.2d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “2(a)(3), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(3) and (4). However, both Rule 32 and the statutes contain a specific exception to the general rule of preclusion where there has been a “signifi *247 cant change in the law” justifying retroactive application.”
State v. Mora (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232(A)(4) — 2 cases
State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “§§ 13-4232(A)(4), 13-4234(A), and 13-4234(F) unconstitutionally invade the procedural rulemaking authority of the Arizona Supreme Court? The questioned statutes read as follows: § 13-4232. A. A petitioner shall not be given relief under this article based on any ground: * * * *…”
State v. Bejarano, 762 P.2d 540 (Ariz. 1988).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232(B) — 4 cases
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz, 340 P.3d 1069 (Ariz. 2014).
State v. Garcia, 731 P.2d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “2(a)(3), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; A.R.S. § 13-4232(A)(3) and (4). However, both Rule 32 and the statutes contain a specific exception to the general rule of preclusion where there has been a “signifi *247 cant change in the law” justifying retroactive application.”
Doub BINFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William RHODE; Grant Woods, Attorney Gen., Respondents-Appellees, 116 F.3d 396 (9th Cir. 1997).
Moreno v. Gonzalez, 116 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1997).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4232(C) — 7 cases
State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996). “He did not set forth with particularity the issues not precluded under A.R.S. § 13-4232. Instead, defendant merely included a conclusory paragraph at the end of his seventeen-page motion to stay which read: "These claims are not precluded because they rest upon either newly…”
State v. Swoopes, 166 P.3d 945 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶5 Finding Swoopes’s IAC and related claims precluded, we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling otherwise and in granting him post-eonvietion relief.”
State v. Curtis, 912 P.2d 1341 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “[5] The Arizona legislature recently amended A.R.S. § 13-4232, Rule 32's statutory counterpart, to provide that, "[t]hough the state has the burden to plead and prove grounds of preclusion, any court on review of the record may determine and hold that an issue is precluded…”
State v. Conner, 786 P.2d 948 (Ariz. 1990). “2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and A.R.S. § 13-4232 are substantially identical—both deal with preclusion in post-conviction matters.”
State v. Espinosa, 29 P.3d 278 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-4232(C) (“Though the state has the burden to plead and prove grounds of preclusion, any court on review of the record may determine and hold that an issue is precluded regardless of *505 the state’s failure to raise the preclusion issue.”
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.