Cited by

‘[W]hen there are no material facts in dispute and the only issue is the legal consequence of undisputed material facts, the superior court need not hold an evidentiary hearing.’ ¶¶ 11-12 (2016) (citation omitted).

A petitioner is 5 STATE v. GILMORE Decision of the Court entitled to an evidentiary hearing, however, if he states a colorable claim, i.e., if “he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 11 (2016).

A colorable claim has “the appearance of validity,” one that, if the allegations are true, would have probably changed the outcome, ¶ 11 (2016).

To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a defendant must state a colorable claim, which requires that he “allege[] facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 34 (2024) ( ¶ 11 (2016)).

P. 32.1(e); –20 ¶¶ 10-11 (2016) (a colorable claim is one that, if true, “would probably” have changed the outcome) (citation modified).

¶¶ 10–11 (2016) (cleaned up).

¶ 9 (2016) (newly discovered evidence “must appear on its face to have existed at the time of trial but be discovered after trial”).

¶ 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 probabilit

¶ 9 (2016); Ariz. R. Crim.

A colorable claim is one that, if true, “would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” –20, ¶¶ 10–11 (2016).

The superior court should hold an evidentiary hearing when a PCR petition has “alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 11 (2016) (emphasis omitted).

A PCR claim is subject to summary dismissal if the alleged facts are unlikely to change the verdict, ¶ 11 (2016), and the court must dismiss the petition when it contains no claim which “presents a material issue of fact or law” that would entitle the defendant to relief, Ariz. R. Crim.

¶ 11 (2016); Ariz. R. Crim.

¶ 12 (2016) (discussing the purpose of an evidentiary hearing in the post- conviction context).

A PCR claim “is subject to summary dismissal ‘[i]f the alleged facts would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence.’” ¶ 9 (2021) ( ¶ 11 (2016)).

.”); (“When such doubts exist, a hearing should be held to allow the defendant to raise the relevant issues, to resolve the matter, and to make a record for review.” (citation omitted)), ¶ 10 (2016).

A defendant is entitled to relief if he presents a colorable claim by “alleg[ing] facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 11 (2016).

Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 180 ¶ 4; ¶ 9 (2016)

¶ 9 (2016) (–53 (1989)).