Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Angela K. Paton](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10808510/state-v-friedel/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Friedel

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 25-0289 PRPC

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Angela K. Paton

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Smith, 184 Ariz.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 raise her claim under Rule 33.1(d) in
a timely manner and addressed the merits of that claim. But the court
denied her relief on it and all other claims. This petition for review
followed.

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review a superior court’s ruling on a PCR petition for an
abuse of discretion, which occurs if the “court makes an error of law or fails
to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” State
v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 180, ¶ 4 (2017). The petitioner bears the burden of
establishing an abuse of discretion. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶
1 (App. 2011). We will affirm the superior court’s decision “if it is legally
correct for any reason.” See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508, ¶ 7 (2015).

¶8 Petitioner first argues her conviction should be overturned
because it was based on perjured information, prosecutorial misconduct,
insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and violations of due
process under Rule 33.1(a). But she does not explain why she failed to
timely raise these issues when she had opportunities to do so in her first
two PCR proceedings.

¶9 The notice for a claim under Rule 33.1(a) must be raised
“within 90 days after the oral pronouncement of [the] sentence.” Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 33.4(b)(3)(A). The court is required to excuse an untimely notice
requesting PCR under Rule 33.1(a) “if the defendant adequately explains
why the failure to timely file a notice was not the defendant’s fault.” Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 33.4(b)(3)(D). Petitioner was sentenced in December 2022.

¶10 The superior court found that Petitioner failed to timely file
her first petition, which led to its dismissal in June 2023. As a result, the
court determined that her Rule 33.1(a) claim was not filed within 90 days of
the oral pronouncement of sentencing and was therefore untimely. The
court also found that Petitioner did not establish that the untimely filing
was not her fault; although she received documentation from the Arizona
Department of Corrections regarding the time calculation of her sentence,
this does not relate to any claims under Rule 33.1(a). On this record, the
superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief on Petitioner’s
Rule 33.1(a) claim.

¶11 Petitioner also raises a claim under Rule 33.1(h), which
provides relief when “the defendant demonstrates by clear and convincing
evidence that the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish

3
STATE v. FRIEDEL
Decision of the Court

that no reasonable fact-finder would find the defendant guilty of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(h). Under Rule 33.1(h),
an issue must be raised within a reasonable time and include an explanation
for why it was not previously raised. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(h), 33.2(b)(1).
For the same reasons provided under Rule 33.1(a), the superior court found
all claims under Rule 33.1(h) were not filed within 90 days of the oral
pronouncement of sentencing and were therefore untimely. The superior
court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief on the Rule 33.1(h) claim.

¶12 As to Rule 33.1(d), Petitioner had an opportunity to explain
why the “new” Department of Corrections information she received
impacted her sentence in her second successive PCR, but she failed to file
that petition, and the court dismissed the case as a result. Because she did
not adequately raise the Rule 33.1(d) issue at that time, the superior court
would have been justified in denying relief based on inadequate
explanation as it did in its initial ruling. The superior court, however, found
Petitioner adequately explained the reasons and addressed the merits of the
claim in its ruling on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

¶13 Rule 33.1(d) requires a defendant to show that she
“continues to be or will continue to be in custody after his or her sentence
expired[.]” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(d). The superior court determined that
the sentencing court correctly imposed the mandatory 17-month
community supervision term under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-603(I)-
(J), and that the 17 months of community supervision does not impact when
Petitioner may be released from incarceration. It further reasoned that even
if Petitioner’s arguments were correct, it would not entitle her to relief
under Rule 33.1(d). But this was not Petitioner’s argument in her PCR
petition; instead, Petitioner appears to argue the superior court misapplied
Section 41-1604.07(B)(2) in its imposition of sentence.

¶14 Specifically, Petitioner argued in her PCR petition, and argues
in her petition for review before us, that the court’s sentence effectively
awarded her only one credit for every seven days served, rather than the
required six days, resulting in an improper reduction of earned-release
credits and an impermissible extension of her sentence. A defendant,
however, cannot obtain relief under Rule 33.1(d) until she reaches a release
date supported by sufficient credits because the director may still rescind
credits based on the inmate’s misconduct. See State v. Harris, No. 1 CA-CR
24-0416 PRPC, 2025 WL 338550, at *2, ¶ 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2025).
Petitioner’s claim under Rule 33.1(d) is therefore premature and she is not
entitled to relief. Id.

4
STATE v. FRIEDEL
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶15 We grant review but deny relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5