State v. McFarland

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

2