State v. Aguirre

── State v. Aguirre ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 19, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. FINDLEY J. STUTLER, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0509 PRPC FILED 5-19-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300CR13426 The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott By Casi Marie Harris Counsel for Respondent C. Kenneth Ray II, P.L.L.C., Prescott By C. Kenneth Ray II Counsel for Petitioner  STATE v. STUTLER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Anni Hill Foster, and Judge D. Andrew Gaona delivered the decision of the court. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Findley J. Stutler seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 33. We grant review but deny relief for the reasons below. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In 1988, the State charged Stutler with first-degree burglary (Count 1), sexual assault (Count 2), kidnapping (Count 3), arson of an occupied structure (Count 4), aggravated assault (Count 5), armed robbery (Count 6), attempted felony murder (Count 7), and attempted first-degree murder (Count 8). Stutler pled guilty to Counts 1, 2, 4, and 8 under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). The State dismissed the remaining counts. ¶3 The superior court imposed the following prison terms: eighteen years for Count 1, fourteen calendar years for Count 2, twenty-one years for Count 4, and twenty-one years for Count 8. The court ordered the sentences for Counts 4 and 8 to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentences for Counts 1 and 2. The court awarded Stutler 349 days of presentence incarceration credit for Counts 4 and 8. We affirmed Stutler’s convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Stutler, 1 CA-CR 89-774 (Ariz. App. Jan. 23, 1990) (mem. decision). In 1991, Stutler unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. State v. Stutler, 1 CA-CR 91- 1643 (Ariz. App. July 28, 1992) (mem. decision). ¶4 In 2024, Stutler filed a self-represented PCR, alleging he will remain in custody after his sentence expires. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(d). He asserted the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry classified his sentence as “flat time” and failed to apply his presentence incarceration credit. He also argued the court should accept his notice as 2  STATE v. STUTLER Decision of the Court timely because “the claim was unknown to [him] until now.” The superior court accepted the notice as timely and appointed counsel. ¶5 Appointed counsel supplemented Stutler’s petition, alleging structural or fundamental error in the attempted first-degree murder conviction. Counsel argued the factual basis the State presented at the change-of-plea hearing did not establish attempted first-degree murder but described a non-existent offense: attempted felony murder. To support this claim, counsel also highlighted a colloquy between the presiding judge and State about the factual basis for the plea, which counsel said confirmed that the factual basis for attempted murder described only attempted felony murder. ¶6 During Stut