A. Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the trial court in these proceedings may, within fifteen days after the ruling of the court, move the court for a rehearing setting forth in detail the grounds for believing that the court erred. A response shall be filed within fifteen days after service of the motion on the adverse party. A reply, if any, shall be filed within ten days after service of the response. The filing of a motion for rehearing in the trial court is not a prerequisite to the filing of a petition for review pursuant to subsection C.
B. If the motion for rehearing is granted, the court may either amend its previous ruling without a hearing or grant a new hearing and then either amend or reaffirm its previous ruling. If the court amends its previous ruling, the court shall set forth its reasons for amending the previous ruling. The state shall notify the victim on request of any action that is taken by the court.
C. Within thirty days after the final decision of the trial court on the petition for post-conviction relief or motion for rehearing, an aggrieved party may petition the appellate court for review of the trial court's actions. A cross-petition for review may be filed with the clerk of the trial court within fifteen days after service of a petition for review. The petition or cross-petition shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court and shall set forth in detail the grounds for believing that the court erred. The filing of a motion for rehearing pursuant to subsection A does not limit the issues that may be raised in the petition or cross-petition for review. The failure to raise an issue that could be raised in the petition or cross-petition for review constitutes a waiver of appellate review of that issue. A response shall be filed within fifteen days and a reply shall be filed within ten days.
D. The form, contents and service for a post-conviction relief petition and cross-petition shall be as prescribed by rule 32.9 of the rules of criminal procedure.
E. A motion for rehearing or a petition for review that is filed pursuant to this section shall stay an order of the trial court issued in the post-conviction relief proceedings until final review is completed unless the trial court specifically orders otherwise. The state shall notify the victim on request of any action taken.
F. Within thirty days after the expiration of the time for filing the last reply, the record, including the trial court file, the reporter's transcript, the original and all copies of the petition and cross-petition for review, responses and replies shall be transmitted to the appellate court.
G. The appellate court may grant review and may order oral argument on the petition if deemed necessary and may issue such orders and grant such relief as it deems necessary and proper. The state shall notify the victim on request of any action taken by the appellate court.
H. The provisions that govern the filing of motions for reconsideration and petitions for review in criminal appeals that are set forth in rules 31.18 and 31.19, Arizona rules of criminal procedure, apply to and govern motions for reconsideration and petitions for review pursuant to rule 32, Arizona rules of criminal procedure.
I. When the matter is determined the clerk of the appellate court shall return the record to the appropriate clerk of the court for retention according to law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
126
cases (
85 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
State v. Shrum, 203 P.3d 1175 (Ariz. 2009).
State v. Shrum, 203 P.3d 1175 (Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 2× “We granted the State’s petition for review to consider whether Gonzalez is a “significant change in the law,” 4 a recurring question of statewide importance.”
State v. Petty, 238 P.3d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” We have jurisdiction over Petty’s petition for review pursuant to AR.S. § 13-4239(C); see also Ariz. R.Crim.”
State of Arizona v. John Montenegro Cruz, 487 P.3d 991 (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 13-4239. II. Simmons and Arizona Cases ¶8 We summarized Simmons in Cruz’s direct appeal: In Simmons, a defendant charged with capital murder was ineligible for parole because of his…”
State v. Szpyrka, 224 P.3d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to AR.S. § 13-4239(c), and Rule 32.9(c), Ariz.”
State v. MacIas, 469 P.3d 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“”) section 13-4239(C) and Rule 32.16. We grant the petition for review, but for the reasons discussed below, deny relief.”
State v. Arnett, 760 P.2d 1064 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 2× “6, § 5(3), A.R.S. § 13-4239 and Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.9(c).”
State v. Peek, 195 P.3d 641 (Ariz. 2008).
“”) section 13-4239 (2001), and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.”
State v. Schmidt, 208 P.3d 214 (Ariz. 2009).
“¶ 4 We granted review to address the recurring issue of the use of the catch-all ag-gravator as the sole aggravating factor to increase a defendant’s maximum potential sentence.”
State v. Evans, 506 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “After ordering and receiving further briefing on the new-law claims under Rule 32.”
State v. Garcia, 731 P.2d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4239(C). PRECLUSION The trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief and motion for reconsideration on the grounds petitioner failed to raise his objection to the self-defense instruction on direct appeal and failed to…”
State v. Aguilar, 823 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “See also A.R.S. § 13-4239(C). Rule 32.9(f), the rule at issue, which governs review of an appellate court decision in a petition for post-conviction relief, provides: (f) Reconsideration and Review of Appellate Court Decision.”
State v. Hill (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 13-4239(C) (“Within thirty days after the final decision of the trial court on the petition for post-conviction relief or motion for rehearing, an aggrieved party may petition the appellate court for review of the trial court’s actions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4239(C) — 93 cases
State v. Petty, 238 P.3d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“” We have jurisdiction over Petty’s petition for review pursuant to AR.S. § 13-4239(C); see also Ariz. R.Crim.”
State v. MacIas, 469 P.3d 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“”) section 13-4239(C) and Rule 32.16. We grant the petition for review, but for the reasons discussed below, deny relief.”
State v. Evans, 506 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“After ordering and receiving further briefing on the new-law claims under Rule 32.”
State v. Garcia, 731 P.2d 610 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4239(C). PRECLUSION The trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief and motion for reconsideration on the grounds petitioner failed to raise his objection to the self-defense instruction on direct appeal and failed to…”
State v. Aguilar, 823 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“See also A.R.S. § 13-4239(C). Rule 32.9(f), the rule at issue, which governs review of an appellate court decision in a petition for post-conviction relief, provides: (f) Reconsideration and Review of Appellate Court Decision.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4239(G) — 9 cases
State v. Hill (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“See A.R.S. § 13-4239(C) (“Within thirty days after the final decision of the trial court on the petition for post-conviction relief or motion for rehearing, an aggrieved party may petition the appellate court for review of the trial court’s actions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4239(H) — 2 cases
State v. Shrum, 203 P.3d 1175 (Ariz. 2009).
“We granted the State’s petition for review to consider whether Gonzalez is a “significant change in the law,” 4 a recurring question of statewide importance.”
State v. Schmidt, 208 P.3d 214 (Ariz. 2009).
“¶ 4 We granted review to address the recurring issue of the use of the catch-all ag-gravator as the sole aggravating factor to increase a defendant’s maximum potential sentence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4239(c) — 2 cases
State v. Szpyrka, 224 P.3d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to AR.S. § 13-4239(c), and Rule 32.9(c), Ariz.”
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.