Opinion
2 CA-CR 2024-0010
05-16-2024
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Arnold Lee Helms, Petitioner.
Arnold Lee Helms, Kingman In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20184540001 The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
Arnold Lee Helms, Kingman In Propria Persona
Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KELLY, JUDGE
¶1 Arnold Helms seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his successive petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Helms has not established such abuse.
¶2 After a jury trial, Helms was convicted of aggravated luring of a minor under fifteen for sexual exploitation and sentenced to a 15.75-year prison term. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Helms, No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0231 (Ariz. App. Mar. 4, 2021) (mem. decision). Helms sought post-conviction relief and appointed counsel filed a notice stating he had reviewed the record but found "no colorable post-conviction claims to pursue." The trial court dismissed the proceeding after Helms did not file a pro se petition by the initial due date in January 2022. The court later reinstated Helms's proceeding, however, after counsel informed the court Helms had not received his case file, setting a due date of July 28, 2022, for his pro se petition. The court again dismissed the proceeding in late August 2022 after Helms failed to file a pro se petition by that date.
¶3 In March 2023, Helms filed a notice of post-conviction relief citing Rule 32.1(f) and asserting his "failure to file a timely Petition was not [his] fault." He asserted that his attorney had not sent his case file until the day his pro se petition was due and that he had requested an extension but made "a mistake regarding the case number." Although Helms included a letter from counsel, he did not provide any proof that he had sought an extension.
¶4 Helms then filed a petition arguing his trial counsel had failed to adequately advise him regarding a plea offer, the state had failed to timely disclose evidence that would have changed his decision to reject the plea offer, and counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the state's purported disclosure violation. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that counsel had adequately informed Helms about the offer and observing that Helms had not identified any material evidence in the state's possession that had not been disclosed when Helms rejected the plea offer. This petition for review followed.
¶5 On review, Helms repeats his arguments and asserts the trial court erred by dismissing his petition without allowing him to file a reply and by accepting "the State's version of the facts while disregarding [his]." We need not reach these arguments, however, because the claims Helms raised in his petition below are precluded and untimely.
¶6 For claims like Helms's raised under Rule 32.1(a), the defendant must file a notice of post-conviction relief within ninety days after sentencing or thirty days after the mandate in the direct appeal, whichever is later. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(b)(3)(A). The mandate in Helms's appeal was issued in July 2021, more than twenty months before he initiated this proceeding. Although Helms claims his failure to file a petition in his first proceeding was not his fault, he does not explain the six-month delay between the dismissal of that proceeding and his initiation of this proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(b)(3)(D) (permitting untimely notice "if the defendant adequately explains why the failure to timely file a notice was not the defendant's fault"). Additionally, because Helms did not file a petition in his first post-conviction proceeding, his claims are precluded as waived under Rule 32.2(a)(3). Helms has identified no exception to preclusion applicable to his case.
¶7 We grant review but deny relief.