Cited by

¶11 “We review the superior court’s denial of [a PCR] for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review its interpretation of rules de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

¶10 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but we interpret procedural rules de novo, –15 ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure de novo, State v. 3 –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

See Trujillo, (court’s broad discretion cannot override defendant’s constitutional right not to be punished for exercising his or her rights).

See Trujillo, (court’s broad discretion cannot override defendant’s constitutional right not to be punished for exercising his or her rights).

-15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019) (Rules of Criminal Procedure); ¶ 4 (2017) (legal conclusions).

We review the superior court’s denial of a petition for PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the criminal rules and the court’s legal 2 STATE v. JUMPER Decision of the Court conclusions de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019); ¶ 4 (2017).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of a petition for PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of a PCR petition for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

DISCUSSION ¶9 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

DISCUSSION ¶11 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

–21, ¶ 34 (App. 2019) (recognizing that a court’s broad discretion in the sentencing sphere “cannot override the constitutional imperative that a defendant cannot be punished ‘because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do’”).