State v. Baltazar

── State v. Baltazar ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: June 05, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JOSE ADAM BALTAZAR, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 24-0292 PRPC FILED XX-XXXXXXX Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. CR-2019-01049, CR-2020-00764, CR-2020-00765 The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED COUNSEL Mohave County Attorney's Office, Kingman By Robert R. Moon Counsel for Respondent Zachary Law Group, PLC, Mesa By Jessica Zachary Counsel for Petitioner  STATE v. BALTAZAR Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Steven Williams joined. M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Jose Adam Baltazar ("Baltazar") petitions this Court to review the superior court's dismissal of his post-conviction relief ("PCR") petition under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 33.1. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, we grant review and relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the judgment. State v. Reed, 252 Ariz. 236, 237 n.1 (App. 2021). In 2021, Baltazar pled guilty in three separate matters to two counts of aggravated assault, class three felonies; one count of possessing dangerous drugs, a class four felony; and one count of attempted unlawful flight from a pursuing law- enforcement vehicle, a class six felony. As part of the plea, the State reduced some of the charges and dismissed a separate aggravated-assault charge in its entirety. The superior court sentenced Baltazar to an aggregate term of 14-years' imprisonment. ¶3 In 2022, Baltazar initiated PCR proceedings, but the superior court ultimately dismissed the proceedings in October 2023 because, after multiple extensions, Baltazar failed to timely file a petition. In June 2023, this Court granted review of the dismissal but denied relief, affirming the superior court's refusal to award Baltazar additional time to file a petition. State v. Baltazar, No. 1 CA-CR 22-0608, 2023 WL 4241194, at *2–3, ¶¶ 11, 15 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 29, 2023). The decision also stated: Finally, we note that the offense of which Baltazar was convicted— attempted unlawful flight from a pursuing law-enforcement vehicle . . . —is not a cognizable crime in Arizona. Under A.R.S. § 28-622.01, a person commits unlawful flight from a pursuing law-enforcement vehicle by willfully fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing law- enforcement vehicle. Attempting to commit unlawful flight constitutes the substantive crime of unlawful flight itself. Because 2  STATE v. BALTAZAR Decision of the Court we do not search PCR proceedings for fundamental error, Smith, 184 Ariz. at 459–60, we do not reach that potential issue here. See State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146 (1984) ("It is the petitioner's burden to assert grounds that bring him within the provisions of [Rule 33] in order to obtain relief."); see also Ramirez, 126 Ariz. at 468. Nor do we express any opinion on the merits of any claim stemming from it in a successive PCR proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.