Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4234 (2026)

Commencement of proceedings; notice; appointment of counsel for capital defendants; assignment of judge; stay

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A proceeding is commenced by timely filing a notice of postconviction relief with the clerk of the court in which the conviction occurred. The clerk of the trial court shall provide notice forms for commencement of first and successive postconviction relief proceedings. The notice shall bear the caption of the original criminal action to which it pertains. The notice in successive postconviction relief proceedings shall comply with section 13-4232, subsection B. On receipt of the notice, the clerk of the trial court shall file a copy of the notice in the case file of each original action and promptly send copies to the defendant, the defendant's attorney, if known, the county attorney and the attorney general, noting the date and manner of sending the copies in the record. The state shall notify the victim on request.

B. If an appeal of the defendant's conviction or sentence, or both, is pending, the clerk, within five days after the filing of the notice for postconviction relief, shall send a copy of the notice to the appropriate appellate court, noting the date and manner of sending the copy in the record.

C. In noncapital cases, the notice shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment and sentence are entered or within thirty days after the order and mandate affirming the judgment and sentence is issued on direct appeal, whichever is later. A defendant has sixty days from the filing of the notice in which to file a petition. On the filing of a successive notice, a defendant has thirty days from the filing of the notice in which to file a petition.

D. In capital cases, on the issuance of a mandate affirming the defendant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal, the clerk of the supreme court expeditiously shall file a notice of postconviction relief with the trial court. On the first notice in capital cases, a defendant has sixty days from the filing of the notice in which to file a petition. The supreme court shall appoint counsel pursuant to section 13-4041, subsection B. All indigent state prisoners under a capital sentence are entitled to the appointment of counsel to represent them in state postconviction proceedings. A competent indigent defendant may reject the offer of counsel with an understanding of its legal consequence. On successive notice in capital cases, the trial court shall appoint the previous postconviction relief counsel of the capital defendant unless counsel is waived pursuant to section 13-4041, subsection D or good cause exists to appoint another qualified attorney pursuant to section 13-4041, subsection B. On the filing of a successive notice, a capital defendant or an appointed attorney has thirty days from the filing of the notice in which to file a petition.

E. A defendant who has pled guilty and who is precluded from filing a direct appeal pursuant to section 13-4033 may be granted an additional thirty day extension of time in which to file the petition if the defendant's counsel refuses to raise issues and leaves the defendant insufficient time to file a petition within the time limits.

F. On a specific and detailed showing of good cause, a defendant in a noncapital case may be granted up to a sixty day extension of time in which to file the petition. On a specific and detailed showing of good cause, a defendant in a capital case may be granted one thirty day extension of time in which to file the petition.

G. The time limits are jurisdictional, and an untimely filed notice or petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.

H. If the record of the trial proceeding has not been transcribed, the defendant may request on a form provided by the clerk of the superior court that the record be prepared. The court shall order that those portions of the record be prepared that it deems necessary to resolve the issues to be raised in the petition. The preparation of the record is a county expense if the defendant is indigent. The time for filing the petition is tolled from the time a request for the record is made until the record is prepared or the request is denied.

I. The proceeding shall be assigned to the sentencing judge if it is possible. If it appears that the sentencing judge's testimony is relevant, the sentencing judge shall transfer the case to another judge.

J. If the defendant has received a sentence of death and the supreme court has fixed the time for execution of the sentence, a stay of execution shall not be granted on the filing of a second or subsequent petition except on separate application for a stay to the supreme court setting forth with particularity those issues raised which are not precluded under section 13-4232. The warrant shall not be stayed to allow for the filing of a petition.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger, 492 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger, 492 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 11× “Conversely, § 13-4234 prescribes the same thirty- and ninety-day time limits set forth in Rule 32.”

State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 29× “In the instant case, as we have previously noted, the one-year time limit provided for in A.R.S. § 13-4234 is in conflict with Rule 32.”

State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 12× “" A.R.S. § 13-4234(F) (1995 Supp.). [8] Defendant failed to do what the statute requires.”

State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez, 278 P.3d 1276 (Ariz. 2012). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-4234(0), -4235. ¶ 22 Section 13-4240(J), however, provides that “[i]f the results of the postconvietion [DNA] testing are not favorable to the petitioner, the court shall dismiss the petition.”

State v. Krum, 903 P.2d 596 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 8× “We note, however, that A.R.S. § 13-4234(0 was not the sole source of appointed counsel for Rulé 32 petitioners.”

State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown, 982 P.2d 815 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 4× “None of the remaining provisions depend upon or are related to the time limits of A.”

State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Lopez, 323 P.3d 1164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Moreover, AR.S. § 13-4234(G), provides that the time limits for filing a notice and petition “are jurisdictional, and an untimely filed notice or petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.”

State v. Pruett, 912 P.2d 1357 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “”) § 13-4234(0; Rule 32.4(c). The court summarily dismissed the petition; this court affirmed.”

Anthony Marshall Spears v. Terry Stewart, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Corr., Opinion, 267 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “4(c) reconfirmed 11 Arizona’s obligation under ARS § 13-4234 to appoint counsel upon the issuance of the notice of post-conviction relief: Upon the filing of a timely notice in a capital case, .”

Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “4(c) reconfirmed 11 Arizona’s obligation under ARS § 13-4234 to appoint counsel upon the issuance of the notice of post-conviction relief: Upon the filing of a timely notice in a capital case, .”

State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin, 365 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “The state argues Goldin failed to file his notice in a timely fashion and that the time limits are jurisdictional under A.R.S. § 13-4234(G), which states that an untimely notice “shall be dismissed with prejudice.”

State v. Aguilar, 823 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “4(a); but see A.R.S. § 13-4234(A), which does not include the above language.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4234(0) — 1 case

State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez, 278 P.3d 1276 (Ariz. 2012). “See A.R.S. §§ 13-4234(0), -4235. ¶ 22 Section 13-4240(J), however, provides that “[i]f the results of the postconvietion [DNA] testing are not favorable to the petitioner, the court shall dismiss the petition.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4234(A) — 4 cases

State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “In the instant case, as we have previously noted, the one-year time limit provided for in A.R.S. § 13-4234 is in conflict with Rule 32.”

State v. Aguilar, 823 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “4(a); but see A.R.S. § 13-4234(A), which does not include the above language.”

State v. Bejarano, 762 P.2d 540 (Ariz. 1988).

Thornell (D. Ariz. 2026).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4234(C) — 2 cases

State v. Krum, 903 P.2d 596 (Ariz. 1995). “We note, however, that A.R.S. § 13-4234(0 was not the sole source of appointed counsel for Rulé 32 petitioners.”

State v. Krum, 893 P.2d 759 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4234(D) — 3 cases

Anthony Marshall Spears v. Terry Stewart, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Corr., Opinion, 267 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2002). “4(c) reconfirmed 11 Arizona’s obligation under ARS § 13-4234 to appoint counsel upon the issuance of the notice of post-conviction relief: Upon the filing of a timely notice in a capital case, .”

Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002). “4(c) reconfirmed 11 Arizona’s obligation under ARS § 13-4234 to appoint counsel upon the issuance of the notice of post-conviction relief: Upon the filing of a timely notice in a capital case, .”

John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich (Ariz. 2017).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4234(F) — 3 cases

State v. Mata, 916 P.2d 1035 (Ariz. 1996). “" A.R.S. § 13-4234(F) (1995 Supp.). [8] Defendant failed to do what the statute requires.”

State v. Fowler, 752 P.2d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “In the instant case, as we have previously noted, the one-year time limit provided for in A.R.S. § 13-4234 is in conflict with Rule 32.”

State v. Bejarano, 762 P.2d 540 (Ariz. 1988).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4234(G) — 12 cases

State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger, 492 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. 2021). “Conversely, § 13-4234 prescribes the same thirty- and ninety-day time limits set forth in Rule 32.”

State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Lopez, 323 P.3d 1164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Moreover, AR.S. § 13-4234(G), provides that the time limits for filing a notice and petition “are jurisdictional, and an untimely filed notice or petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.”

State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin, 365 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “The state argues Goldin failed to file his notice in a timely fashion and that the time limits are jurisdictional under A.R.S. § 13-4234(G), which states that an untimely notice “shall be dismissed with prejudice.”

Moreno v. Gonzalez, 116 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1997).

State v. Bryant (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).

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.