State v. Plaza-Uzeta

── State v. Plaza-Uzeta ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 24-0279 PRPC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 23, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. RUBEN PLAZA-UZETA, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 24-0279 PRPC FILED 03-23-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2003-018302-002 The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Ruben Plaza-Uzeta, Oxford, Wisconsin Petitioner Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Phillip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.  STATE v. PLAZA-UZETA Decision of the Court T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Ruben Plaza-Uzeta petitions this court for review of the superior court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1 (2025).1 The court has considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grants review but denies relief. ¶2 In 2004, Plaza-Uzeta pled guilty to drive by shooting, a Class 2 felony. The written plea agreement stated Plaza-Uzeta agreed to a term of no more than eight years in prison and restitution not to exceed $250,000. Plaza-Uzeta was sentenced to five years of imprisonment. ¶3 Plaza-Uzeta is in federal custody on unrelated matters. In 2023, Plaza-Uzeta filed a motion for clarification of judgment of his conviction for drive by shooting, arguing that, at the time he pled guilty, he could not read or speak English and “had no idea of what he signed.” He also argued his attorney misled him by not explaining that an element of drive by shooting was discharging the firearm, which meant he was innocent because the victim had identified someone else as the shooter. The court denied the motion without prejudice and stated the proper request for relief for a claim of innocence was a Notice Requesting Post-Conviction Relief (Notice). ¶4 Plaza-Uzeta then filed a Notice claiming innocence under Rule 33.1(h), but failed to explain why it took him 20 years to file or why he was entitled to a post-conviction relief. The superior court dismissed the notice because “Mr. Plaza-Uzeta must assert substantive claims and adequately explain the reasons for their untimely assertion” and he failed to do so. He filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to explain his claim of innocence, which the court denied for lack of good cause. Plaza-Uzeta then timely filed a petition for review by this court. ¶5 The court reviews the superior court’s decision for an abuse of discretion and will uphold that decision “if it is legally correct for any reason.” State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508 ¶ 7 (2015) (citations omitted). An abuse of discretion is “an exercise of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 (App. 1992) (citation omitted). 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 2  STATE v. PLAZA-UZETA Decision of the Court ¶6 Plaza-Uzeta’s claim is not colorable. Post-conviction relief for a claim of innocence is proper when “the defendant demonstrates by clear and convincing evid