State v. Vo

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. NGHIA HUGH VO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0490 PRPC FILED 04-23-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1991-004071 The Honorable Pamela Dunne, Judge Retired REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Nghia Hugh Vo, Buckeye Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Andrew J. Becke, and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.

STATE v. VO Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Nghia Hugh Vo seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his fifth proceeding for post-conviction relief under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court erred by denying the petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter (including Vo’s current and previous post-conviction proceedings), the superior court’s order dismissing the petition, and Vo’s petition for review. The superior court (1) addressed Vo’s claims directly, even though the petition was untimely and successive; (2) properly noted claims that were precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(2) due to final adjudication on the merits in previous proceedings; and (3) properly addressed Vo’s related claim of a significant change in the law. Vo has not established an abuse of discretion here.

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.

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