State v. Friedel

── State v. Friedel ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 25-0289 PRPC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 13, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. ALYSSA HARLEY FRIEDEL, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0289 PRPC FILED 03-13-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. CR-2022-00394 The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman By Matthew J. Smith Counsel for Respondent Alyssa Harley Friedel, Goodyear Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.  STATE v. FRIEDEL Decision of the Court P A T O N, Judge: ¶1 Alyssa Friedel (“Petitioner”) seeks review of the superior court’s order denying her petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”), filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 33.1. We have considered the petition for review and grant review but deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Petitioner pled guilty to attempted child abuse by domestic violence in 2022 and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. This is her third PCR proceeding. ¶3 Petitioner first filed a notice requesting PCR in December 2022. She sought relief solely under Rule 33.1(b)-(h). In April 2023, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Montgomery Brief, stating that counsel found no colorable claims to raise. See Montgomery v. Sheldon, 181 Ariz. 256, 258, superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459 (1996). The court gave Petitioner until June 2023 to file her pro se PCR petition. She failed to file a petition by that date, and the court dismissed the action. ¶4 Petitioner filed a second PCR notice in September 2024. She checked the box noting this was a successive PCR notice but explained she had received information from the Arizona Department of Corrections in August 2024, which “exposed the constitutional violation,” “created new claims,” and “[wa]s the foundation for the [new] claims.” The court gave Petitioner 60 days to file her petition after the case file was provided to her. Petitioner’s counsel notified the court that counsel mailed Petitioner her case file in September 2024. Petitioner failed to file a petition within 60 days of receiving the file and the court dismissed the case in January 2025. ¶5 Later that month, Petitioner filed a PCR petition, noting it was a successive petition. She raised claims that her plea violated the United States or Arizona Constitutions, pursuant to Rule 33.1(a). Petitioner also raised claims under Rule 33.1(d), asserting that she remains or will remain in custody after her sentence has expired, and under Rule 33.1(h), contending that clear and convincing evidence shows the underlying facts would establish that no reasonable fact finder could find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶6 In February 2025, the court dismissed her petition based on untimeliness and her failure to adequately explain why the untimeliness was not her fault. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, urging the court to 2  STATE v. FRIEDEL Decision of the Court reconsider its dismissal of her petition. The court found she adequately explained why she previously did not ra