Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0894 PRPC
06-02-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. VICTOR VAVAGES, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Victor Vavages, Buckeye Petitioner
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-131573-001
The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Victor Vavages, Buckeye
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris, Judge Patricia A. Orozco, and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Victor Vavages seeks review of the dismissal of his Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 notice of post-conviction relief. For reasons that follow, we grant review but deny relief.
¶2 Vavages pled guilty to trafficking in stolen property and was sentenced to a stipulated term of ten years' imprisonment. Vavages did not file a petition for post-conviction relief of-right and now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his first untimely notice of post-conviction relief.
¶3 Vavages argues that (1) his failure to file a timely notice of post-conviction relief was not his fault, (2) his sentence is illegal, and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective.
¶4 Vavages asserts that his failure to file a timely notice of post-conviction relief of-right was not his fault because he is not familiar with the law and another inmate only recently told him that his sentence is illegal. But Vavages' lack of knowledge of the law is not a valid excuse for an untimely filing. See State v. Soltero, 205 Ariz. 378, 380, ¶ 7, 71 P.3d 370, 372 (App. 2003). Moreover, even assuming Vavages could raise his illegal-sentence claim in an untimely notice of post-conviction relief, he has failed to present a colorable claim for relief because he does not identify how his sentence is illegal. See, e.g., Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) (requiring "meritorious reasons . . . substantiating the claim" to avoid summary dismissal of a successive or untimely notice of post-conviction relief). Finally, Vavages has similarly failed to present a colorable claim for relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel—again assuming that this claim is not procedurally barred given his failure to raise it in a timely Rule 32 proceeding of-right, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c), 32.2(a)-(b), 32.4(a)—because he does not explain how any action or inaction on the part of counsel fell below objectively reasonable standards or prejudiced his case. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (requiring a showing of deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel).
¶6 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.