colorable IAC claim in Arizona

2026It found Vigorito failed to state a colorable IAC claim under the two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which required Vigorito to demonstrate that (1) his trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as defined by prevailing professional norms, and (2) he was actually prejudiced by his trial counsel’s deficient performance.

2025See State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 548 ¶ 12 (2021). 2 STATE v. BUTTON Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a petition for post- conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402 , 407 ¶ 6 (2021). ¶5 To state a colorable IAC claim, Button “must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced [him].” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 , 567

2025Jimenez did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶9 To state a colorable IAC claim, Jimenez “must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that 3 STATE v. JIMENEZ Decision of the Court this deficiency prejudiced [him].” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 567, ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). ¶10 Jimenez claims he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel because both failed to present mitigation evidence for his kidnapping charge during sentencing and on direct appeal.

2025See State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 548 ¶ 12 (2021). 2 STATE v. BUTTON Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a petition for post- conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402 , 407 ¶ 6 (2021). ¶5 To state a colorable IAC claim, Button “must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced [him].” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 , 567

2026See Roseberry, 237 Ariz. at 508, ¶ 7 . ¶12 To state a colorable IAC claim under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant must show “that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence.” State v. Reasoner, 154 Ariz. 377 , 382–83 (App. 1987) (quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)). ¶13 Dudley fails to show his claim is meritorious.

2026We will affirm the court’s ruling “if it is legally correct for any reason.” State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508, ¶ 7 (2015). ¶7 Navarro contends the superior court erred by (1) requiring him to provide an affidavit from trial counsel to establish a colorable IAC claim; (2) misapplying the Strickland prejudice standard; and (3) denying his request for a DNA expert and then dismissing his IAC claim for lack of expert evidence.

2026See Roseberry, 237 Ariz. at 508, ¶ 7 . ¶12 To state a colorable IAC claim under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant must show “that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence.” State v. Reasoner, 154 Ariz. 377 , 382–83 (App. 1987) (quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)). ¶13 Dudley fails to show his claim is meritorious.

2026See State v. Bowers, 192 Ariz. 419, 425, ¶ 25 (App. 1998) (mere generalizations and unsubstantiated claims do not create a colorable IAC claim); see also Donald, 198 Ariz. at 414, ¶ 21 (to warrant evidentiary hearing, Rule 32 claim “must consist of more than conclusory assertions”).

2026Borbon, 146 Ariz. at 399 ; see State v. Schurz, 176 Ariz. 46, 58 (1993) (finding defendant failed to raise a colorable IAC claim based on the argument that the verdict would have been different if an unidentified witness had been found). ¶18 Benitez neither identifies a specific witness nor how this witness’s testimony could have changed his verdict.

2026See Borbon, 146 Ariz. at 399-401 (rejecting defendant’s IAC claim based in part on the failure to “indicate the names of witnesses [or] include affidavits containing what testimony they would have offered”); Schurz, 176 Ariz. at 58 (holding that defendant failed to state a colorable IAC claim based on his complaint that counsel “failed to spend sufficient effort to locate an unidentified [person] who was at the scene” because defendant did not explain “what the [person’s] testimony might have been or how it would have affected the trial”). ¶21 Benitez identifies no expert witness who could hav

2026See Borbon, 146 Ariz. at 399 (finding mere generalizations and unsubstantiated claims do not create a colorable IAC claim); see also State v. Osborne, No. 1 CA-CR 20- 0305, 2020 WL 6578367 , at *2, ¶ 6 (Ariz. App. Nov. 10, 2020) (mem. decision) (citing Borbon, 146 Ariz. at 399 ) (finding petitioner failed to state a colorable IAC claim based on “general claims of poor communication with counsel.”).

2026See Borbon, 146 Ariz. at 399 (finding mere generalizations and unsubstantiated claims do not create a colorable IAC claim); see also State v. Osborne, No. 1 CA-CR 20- 0305, 2020 WL 6578367 , at *2, ¶ 6 (Ariz. App. Nov. 10, 2020) (mem. decision) (citing Borbon, 146 Ariz. at 399 ) (finding petitioner failed to state a colorable IAC claim based on “general claims of poor communication with counsel.”).

2026See State v. Bowers, 192 Ariz. 419, 425, ¶ 25 (App. 1998) (mere generalizations and unsubstantiated claims do not create a colorable IAC claim); see also Donald, 198 Ariz. at 414, ¶ 21 (to warrant evidentiary hearing, Rule 32 claim “must consist of more than conclusory assertions”).

2026See Roseberry, 237 Ariz. at 508, ¶ 7 . ¶12 To state a colorable IAC claim under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant must show “that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence.” State v. Reasoner, 154 Ariz. 377 , 382–83 (App. 1987) (quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)). ¶13 Dudley fails to show his claim is meritorious.

2025Thomas v. Rayes, 214 Ariz. 411, 415, ¶ 20 (2007). ¶9 To bring a colorable IAC claim, a petitioner must prove deficient performance by counsel and prejudice to his or her case.

2025See State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 548 ¶ 12 (2021). 2 STATE v. BUTTON Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a petition for post- conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402 , 407 ¶ 6 (2021). ¶5 To state a colorable IAC claim, Button “must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced [him].” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 , 567

2025See State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 , 548 ¶ 12 (2021). 2 STATE v. BUTTON Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a petition for post- conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402 , 407 ¶ 6 (2021). ¶5 To state a colorable IAC claim, Button “must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced [him].” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 , 567

2024“The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011). ¶13 Riepe failed to show his counsel’s performance was deficient and therefore failed to establish a colorable IAC claim.

2024See State v. Connor, 215 Ariz. 553 , 564 ¶ 39 (App. 2007). ¶13 Nor did Russo raise a colorable IAC claim based on counsel’s handling of evidence and argument about whether C.H.’s blood was found in the trunk of T.M.’s car.

2022“To be colorable, the claim must have the appearance of validity, a determination that the trial court is in a better position to make than this court.” State v. Boldrey, 176 Ariz. 378, 380 (App. 1993).

2021See State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 268, ¶ 23 (App. 1999) (To state a colorable IAC claim, “[t]he petitioner . . . must offer some evidence of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the [proceeding] would have been different.”).

2018See State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71, 73 (1988) (noting a defendant who presents a colorable claim is entitled to an evidentiary hearing). ¶7 Finally, to the extent Mendoza contends he was entitled to appointment of Rule 32 counsel, he is incorrect.

2017Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 397 (1985).