State v. Sayadyan

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARTUR SAYADYAN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 26-0084 PRPC
FILED 09-23-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2005-108308-002
The Honorable James N. Drake Jr., Judge
The Honorable Brian R. Hauser, Judge, Retired

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Feldman Royle Ahl PLLC, Phoenix
By David E. Ahl
Counsel for Petitioner

STATE v. SAYADYAN
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Artur Sayadyan seeks review of the superior court’s dismissal
of his post-conviction relief (“PCR”) petition filed under Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 33.1. We grant review but deny relief.

Facts and Procedural Background

¶2 In 2005, a grand jury indicted Sayadyan for theft, fraudulent
schemes and artifices, possession of narcotic drugs, and forgery. The State
amended the indictment to allege that Sayadyan had a prior felony
conviction and was on felony release when he committed the crimes
charged. Sayadyan, represented by counsel, and the State entered into a
plea agreement that required Sayadyan to plead guilty to the theft charge.
In return, the State would dismiss the remaining charges and all sentencing
enhancements. The parties had no stipulations for sentencing, and the
court accepted the plea agreement.

¶3 The presentence report reflected that Sayadyan came to the
United States in 2001 under refugee status, and earned a university degree
in Armenia in 1999 in “jurisprudence.” The presentence report also set out
the facts supporting the charges, which were:

On or between February 16, 2005 and March 18, 2005,
the defendant and Seryan Gevorgyan used fraudulent credit
cards to purchase items from two Ultimate Electronics stores.
The purchases totaled approximately $14,000.00.

On March 18, 2005, the defendants were arrested in an
Ultimate Electronics store after trying to purchase plasma
televisions with a suspected stolen credit card. After speaking
with store employees, police were advised the defendants
had purchased televisions from another Ultimate Electronics
store on February 16, 2005, and the Discover Credit Cards
they used were found to be fraudulent. While standing with

2

STATE v. SAYADYAN
Decision of the Court

the defendant, police noticed one of them throw a small ball
of tin foil to the ground, which was later discovered to contain
heroin. A search of each of the defendants’ wallets by police
located fraudulent credit cards.

¶4 In 2005, at sentencing, the court suspended imposition of a
sentence and placed Sayadyan on probation for 3 years. As a condition of
his probation, Sayadyan was ordered to serve one year in the county jail
with 180 days’ presentence incarceration credit. Sayadyan signed for his
review rights notice, informing him that he had to file a PCR notice within
90 days of sentencing. In 2008, the probation department alerted the court
that Sayadyan was being removed from the United States by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, so the court discharged him from probation.

¶5 Nearly 20 years after the sentencing and 17 years after his
deportation, Sayadyan filed a PCR notice and petition. Sayadyan claimed
that his native language is Armenian; he does not speak or understand
English or Russian fluently. He spoke English with his lawyer, but he could
not comprehend legal discussions or court proceedings. He did not
understand the Russian interpreter provided by the court at the change-of-
plea hearing. Because of the language barrier, he did not understand the
immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Thus, he did not knowingly
and voluntarily enter into the plea agreement.

¶6 As for why he waited so long to file his PCR petition,
Sayadyan claimed that because he was deported, he “was unable to file
pleadings in the Maricopa County Superior Court.” Because he has again
returned to the United States to seek refugee status, he maintained he “can
challenge the legality of his conviction and sentence.” See Ariz. R. Crim.
Pro. 33.1(f) (failure to file a notice of post-conviction relief was not the
defendant’s fault).

¶7 The superior court found the PCR notice untimely and
dismissed it. The court noted that the severe delay in bringing the claim
significantly impaired its ability to conduct a review. The change-of-plea
and sentencing transcripts are no longer available. Also, while Sayadyan
maintained that he could not file his claims because he was deported in
2008, this did not explain why he did not file in the nearly three years that
he was on probation before his deportation. The court held that Sayadyan’s
self-serving assertions could not rebut “the presumption of verity
occasioned by his plea colloquy or to state a colorable claim that his plea
was involuntary.” See State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa
Cnty., 157 Ariz. 71, 73 (1988) (“A defendant represented by counsel is

3

STATE v. SAYADYAN
Decision of the Court

usually presumed to have entered his guilty plea voluntarily.”); State v.
Leyva, 241 Ariz. 521, 527 ¶ 17 n.9 (App. 2017). The court then dismissed the
PCR proceedings under Rule 33.2(b)(1) (“If the notice does not provide
sufficient reasons why the defendant did not raise the claim . . . in a timely
manner, the court may summarily dismiss the notice.”).

¶8 Sayadyan petitioned this Court for review. We have
jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-4239(C) and Rule 33.16.

DISCUSSION

¶9 In his petition, Sayadyan raises these arguments:

1. Did the trial court err by failing to excuse the untimely
notice of post-conviction relief?

2. Did the trial court err by finding that Sayadyan failed
to state a colorable claim?

¶10 We will not disturb the superior court’s ruling on a PCR
petition absent an abuse of discretion or error of law. State v. Evans, 252
Ariz. 590, 594 ¶ 7 (App. 2022). We review the court’s legal conclusions de
novo. State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 180 ¶ 4 (2017). A defendant must strictly
comply with the rules to be eligible for PCR. Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598,
600 ¶ 11 (2005). It is a petitioner’s burden to show the superior court abused
its discretion by denying the PCR petition. State v. Reed, 252 Ariz. 236, 238
¶ 6 (App. 2021).

The Superior Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion by Concluding
that Sayadyan’s Petition Was Untimely and Precluded.

¶11 Rule 33.4 sets forth three general timing requirements for PCR
proceedings by defendants who pled guilty. Claims asserting a
constitutional basis must be filed within 90 days of sentencing. Ariz. R.
Crim. Pro. 33.4(b)(3)(A). Claims of ineffective assistance of the first PCR
counsel must be filed within 30 days of the final order in the first PCR
proceeding. Ariz. R. Crim. Pro. 33.4(b)(3)(C). Any other claim (Rule 33.1(b)
through (h)) must be filed “within a reasonable time after discovering the
basis for the claim.” Ariz. R. Crim. Pro. 33.4(b)(3)(B). The superior court
does not abuse its discretion by dismissing constitutional claims under Rule
33.1(a) as untimely if the defendant fails to show that the untimely filing of
the claim was not his or her fault. Reed, 252 Ariz. at 239 ¶ 11.

4

STATE v. SAYADYAN
Decision of the Court

¶12 In his PCR petition, Sayadyan raised two arguments — a
claimed constitutional violation that his plea was involuntary because of
the use of a Russian rather than an Armenian interpreter (Rule 33.1(a)) and
an argument that his tardiness in bringing the claim was not his fault (Rule
33.1(f)). Sayadyan can raise the Rule 33.1(a) claim only if he succeeds in his
Rule 33.1(f) argument. See id. at ¶ 11. To successfully raise his Rule 33.1(f)
challenge, Sayadyan first had the burden to show that he brought his
constitutional claim “within a reasonable time after discovering the basis
for the claim.” Ariz. R. Crim. Pro. 33.4(b)(3)(D). Sayadyan’s stated basis for
the delay was in his affidavit attached to his PCR petition.

After I served my prison sentence, I learned that there were
immigration consequences from pleading guilty. When I
realized I was to be deported, I was unaware that I could
challenge my conviction through post-conviction relief
because I did not understand the post-conviction relief
advisement during the change of plea proceedings. Once I
learned that I could challenge the conviction, I had already
been deported and was unable to file pleadings in the
Maricopa County Superior Court.

¶13 The court in State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 539 ¶¶ 4, 6 (App.
2011), considered a similar claims as the ones raised by Sayadyan. Like
Sayadyan, Poblete claimed he could not have sought timely PCR relief
because he did not become aware until later that his plea led to mandatory
removal from the United States. Id. at ¶ 4. This court held that relief should
be granted for “without fault” under Rule 32.1(f), now Rule 33.1(f), when
the trial court fails to advise the defendant of his right to seek PCR or if the
defendant intended to seek PCR and mistakenly believed his counsel had
filed a timely notice. Id. at ¶ 6. Learning of a collateral consequence after
the fact is not the fault contemplated under the rule. Id.

¶14 Before Padilla v. Kentucky, 599 U.S. 356 (2010), courts and
counsel did not have to warn pleading defendants about potential
immigration consequences from entering into a plea agreement. Id. at ¶ 10.
Padilla changed the legal requirement, and now a defendant must be
informed before entering a plea agreement that there may be immigration
consequences. Id. The new rule announced in Padilla applies to cases not
yet final. Id. at ¶ 11. But Padilla offers no relief for cases final before it was
announced. Id. at ¶ 16.

¶15 Here, like Poblete, Sayadyan’s case became final when the time
to file his PCR notice expired in 2005. See State v. Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, 389-

5

STATE v. SAYADYAN
Decision of the Court

90 ¶ 8 (2003). So, under the law then in effect, whether the court or counsel
failed to alert Sayadyan of the potential immigration consequences didn’t
make his plea involuntary, State v. Rosas, 183 Ariz. 421, 423 (App. 1995), and
can’t be a basis for a finding that he was “without fault” under Rule 33.1(f),
Poblete, 227 Ariz. at 539 ¶ 6.

¶16 Even if learning of an immigration consequence could be
considered a basis for a “without fault” finding under Rule 33.1(f) after
Padilla, Sayadyan failed to show that he brought the claim “within a
reasonable time after discovering the basis for the claim.” Ariz. R. Crim.
Pro. 33.4(b). Sayadyan states in his affidavit that he learned of the
immigration consequences of his conviction after serving his prison
sentence. His incarceration was six more months after sentencing in
September 2005. Yet, court records show Sayadyan was deported in 2008.
Sayadyan does not explain why he could not seek PCR from 2006 to 2008.
His only claim is that once deported, he could not file a claim in Arizona.

¶17 Under the “within a reasonable time” standard, the passage
of time alone cannot preclude relief. Reed, 252 Ariz. at 239 ¶ 14; cf State v.
Delich, 260 Ariz. at 85 ¶ 9 (App. 2025) (Where the petitioner delayed twelve
years before raising his claim, “the passage of time becomes a more pivotal
factor in assessing reasonableness of any delay.”). A court, in determining
whether the delay is reasonable, must consider, among other things, the
consequences of failing to address the merits of the claim and the prejudice
to the State or victim. Reed, 252 Ariz. at 239 ¶ 14. Here, the consequences
to Sayadyan are negligible because, as discussed above, when he entered
his plea, the court and counsel did not have to explain the immigration
consequences to render the plea voluntary. And the prejudice to the State
in having to prosecute the case after 20 years is self-evident.

¶18 The court didn’t abuse its discretion by determining
Sayadyan failed to show he was without fault under Rule 33.1(f). Because
we affirm the court’s determination that the notice and petition were
untimely, we don’t address Sayadyan’s due process claim under Rule
33.1(a) (failure to provide an Armenian interpreter).

6

STATE v. SAYADYAN
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶19 We grant review but deny relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

7