State v. McFarland
This text of State v. McFarland (State v. McFarland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
v.
JJ AUSTIN ANGEL AMACK MCFARLAND, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 24-0585 PRPC FILED 04-24-2025
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR201880172 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Todd Christopher Lawson Counsel for Respondent
JJ Austin Angel Amack McFarland, Florence Petitioner STATE v. MCFARLAND Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani, Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the following decision.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Jay McFarland seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1. This is McFarland’s second petition.
¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or legal error, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). Petitioner has the burden to show that the superior court erred by denying the petition for post- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).
¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition for review. Petitioner claims the superior court erred by summarily dismissing his untimely petition. He argues the court should have excused his untimely notice because he is not legally trained.
¶4 The superior court is not required to accept an untimely petition unless the petitioner adequately explains why the untimeliness is not the petitioner’s fault. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.4(b)(3)(D). The court did not abuse its discretion by finding Petitioner had failed to do so. Cf. State v. Soltero, 205 Ariz. 378, 380, ¶ 7 (App. 2003) (lack of knowledge of the law is not a valid excuse).
¶5 We grant review but deny relief.
MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. McFarland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcfarland-arizctapp-2025.