Background
Christopher Mark Lackhan pleaded guilty to attempted child sex trafficking, a dangerous crime against children. Under the plea agreement, the State dismissed charges of child sex trafficking, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, and money laundering. The superior court imposed the stipulated lifetime probation, sex-offender and computer-use conditions, registration requirement, and one-year deferred jail sentence on March 5, 2024.
At sentencing, Lackhan received written notice that a post-conviction-relief notice had to be filed within 90 days. ICE arrested him on May 28, 2024, for removal proceedings, and he was removed from the United States on August 18, 2025. He filed his PCR notice on December 5, 2025, asserting ineffective assistance, no-fault untimeliness, and newly discovered facts. The superior court summarily dismissed the notice as untimely.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief. Lackhan did not show that the superior court abused its discretion in rejecting his claim that the late filing was not his fault. He undisputedly received notice of his PCR rights and deadline, did not ask counsel to file a notice, and offered no excuse for failing to file during the 84 days between sentencing and ICE custody.
The court was not persuaded that equitable tolling applies to PCR-notice deadlines. Even assuming it could apply and toll the time Lackhan spent in ICE custody, he still did not file within the six days remaining after his removal-period tolling theory. His asserted instability and lack of internet access after removal to Trinidad and Tobago did not establish diligence and extraordinary circumstances sufficient for equitable tolling. Lackhan also waived appellate review of the dismissal of his newly discovered-evidence claim by not raising it in his petition for review.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking relief from an untimely PCR notice must adequately explain why the delay was not the defendant’s fault.
- Receiving notice of PCR rights and deadlines, without taking reasonable steps to file or ask counsel to file, weighs against a no-fault claim.
- Even if equitable tolling were available for PCR notices, personal hardship after deportation did not excuse this extended delay.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict 90-day deadline for an Arizona PCR notice after a guilty plea. ICE detention and removal may present practical obstacles, but a petitioner must still show diligence and account for the full period of delay.