State v. Le

── State v. Le ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. TOAN SY LE, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0443 PRPC FILED 04-23-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2001-095348 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Law Office of Daniel Huynh, PLC, Phoenix By Daniel M. Huynh Counsel for Petitioner  STATE v. LE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge D. Steven Williams joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Toan Le seeks review of the superior court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”), filed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 33.1 We grant review and deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In February 2002, Le pled guilty to solicitation to sell a dangerous drug, a class 4 felony. The superior court sentenced him to two months’ incarceration and placed him on three years’ probation. In 2007, Le moved to expunge his criminal record, stating he made a mistake, learned his lesson, and recently got married and wanted to become an American citizen. At the hearing on his motion, the court confirmed Le had fully paid his fees and fines, and the State withdrew its objection to his motion. The court vacated Le’s judgment of guilt and dismissed the charges against him, informing him that he could not “state that he has not been convicted of a felony unless he also disclose[d] the order vacating judgment.” ¶3 In 2011, Le received a notice to appear from the federal Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The basis for the notice was Le’s 2002 drug conviction. Le unsuccessfully challenged the notice to both the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal in 2018 and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ¶4 Over twenty years after his guilty plea, in August 2025, Le filed his PCR notice. He argued that neither the court nor his trial counsel advised him of the immigration consequences of entering the plea agreement. He explained his failure to timely file his PCR notice was 1 Although Le filed under Rule 32, we construe his petition as one under Rule 33 because he was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement. 2  STATE v. LE Decision of the Court because he was unaware a constitutional violation occurred until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained him in July 2025. ¶5 Le filed his PCR petition in October 2025. The superior court dismissed it as untimely and alternatively denied the petition on the merits. Le timely petitioned for review following the court’s dismissal. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-4239(C), and Rule 33.16(k). DISCUSSION ¶6 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion and will affirm if the ruling is legally correct for any reason. State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508, ¶ 7 (2015). It is Le’s burden to show the court abused its discretion