Background
In 2005, Artur Sayadyan pleaded guilty to theft under an agreement dismissing charges of fraudulent schemes, narcotics possession, and forgery, as well as sentencing enhancements. The charges arose from the use of fraudulent credit cards to buy approximately $14,000 in goods from Ultimate Electronics stores. The superior court placed him on probation and ordered county-jail time, with presentence credit.
Sayadyan was deported in 2008. Nearly two decades after sentencing, he sought post-conviction relief, asserting that he did not understand English or Russian sufficiently, was provided a Russian rather than Armenian interpreter at his plea hearing, and therefore did not understand the plea’s immigration consequences. The superior court dismissed the petition as untimely.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief. It held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding Sayadyan’s petition untimely and precluded because he failed to establish that the late filing was not his fault under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1(f).
Sayadyan stated that he learned of the immigration consequences after serving his jail sentence, but he did not explain why he failed to seek relief between 2006 and his 2008 deportation. The court also held that, because his conviction became final before Padilla v. Kentucky, an alleged failure to advise him of immigration consequences did not render the plea involuntary under then-applicable law. Having affirmed dismissal as untimely, the court did not reach his due-process claim concerning the lack of an Armenian interpreter.
Key Takeaways
- A pleading defendant must timely pursue post-conviction relief or show that the failure was not the defendant’s fault.
- Learning later of a plea’s immigration consequences does not, by itself, satisfy Rule 33.1(f).
- A petitioner invoking the rule must also show that the claim was raised within a reasonable time after its basis was discovered.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow scope of Arizona’s “without fault” exception for untimely post-conviction petitions. A lengthy delay requires a concrete explanation, particularly where the State would face substantial prejudice in revisiting a decades-old prosecution.