petition presents a colorable claim in Arizona

2017State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71, 73 (1988).

2014State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71, 73 , 750 P.2d 14, 16 (1988).

2025See State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016) (“The relevant inquiry for determining whether the [defendant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing is whether he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.”); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (finding that a challenger must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”).

2022See State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016). ¶6 To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

2014A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, however, if the petition presents a colorable claim—“that is a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 328 , 793 P.2d 80, 85 (1990); see also Ariz. R.

2014A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, however, if the petition presents a colorable claim—“that is a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 328 , 793 P.2d 80, 85 (1990); see also Ariz. R.

2026In determining whether a petition presents a colorable claim, courts are “obligated to treat [the defendant’s] factual allegations as true,” State v. Jackson, 209 Ariz. 13, 16, ¶ 6 (App. 2004), unless the record contains evidence that belies such allegations and thus the claims lack “the appearance of validity,” State v. Chairez, 235 Ariz. 99, 102, ¶ 15 (App. 2013). ¶11 In his petition for review, Petkovic argues the trial court: (1) improperly disregarded his factual assertions and corroborating evidence related to the integrity of his plea, (2) committed legal error in dismissing his structu

2026In determining whether a petition presents a colorable claim, courts are “obligated to treat [the defendant’s] factual allegations as true,” State v. Jackson, 209 Ariz. 13, 16, ¶ 6 (App. 2004), unless the record contains evidence that belies such allegations and thus the claims lack “the appearance of validity,” State v. Chairez, 235 Ariz. 99, 102, ¶ 15 (App. 2013). ¶11 In his petition for review, Petkovic argues the trial court: (1) improperly disregarded his factual assertions and corroborating evidence related to the integrity of his plea, (2) committed legal error in dismissing his structu

2025See State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016) (“The relevant inquiry for determining whether the [defendant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing is whether he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.”); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (finding that a challenger must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”).

2025In evaluating an IAC claim, the court must begin with the “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct [fell] within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” See State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 181, ¶ 7 (2017) (quotation omitted). ¶20 The trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition if the petition presents a colorable claim for relief, meaning that the petition’s allegations, if true, would probably have resulted in a more 5 STATE v. CRAMER Decision of the Court favorable outcome for the defendant.

2024Thus, “[s]ummary dismissal is inappropriate when the petition presents a colorable claim[, which is] one that has the appearance of validity; that is, if the allegations were taken to be true, the petitioner would be entitled to relief.” State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71-72 (App. 1988) (citation omitted), approved but modified in part, 164 Ariz. 485, 493 (1990). ¶6 On review, Coli again claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

2024Thus, “[s]ummary dismissal is inappropriate when the petition presents a colorable claim[, which is] one that has the appearance of validity; that is, if the allegations were taken to be true, the petitioner would be entitled to relief.” State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71-72 (App. 1988) (citation omitted), approved but modified in part, 164 Ariz. 485, 493 (1990). ¶6 On review, Coli again claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.