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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

2