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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LAMONT HENNIX, JR., Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0387 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-003538-001

The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Lamont Hennix, Jr., Eloy

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

FILED 10-26-2017
STATE v. HENNIX

Decision of the Court

2

D O W N I E, Judge:

¶1 Lamont Hennix, Jr., petitions for review from the superior 

court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32. For the following reasons, 

we grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Hennix pleaded guilty to promoting prison contraband, a 

class 2 felony, and he admitted having one prior felony conviction. The 

superior court imposed a stipulated term of 9.25 years’ imprisonment. 

More than two years later, Hennix filed a notice of, and petition for, postconviction relief, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and 

actual innocence. The superior court summarily dismissed the Rule 32 

proceeding, and this timely petition for review followed. We review the 

superior court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 

573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012).

¶3 Because this is Hennix’s “of-right” post-conviction relief 

proceeding, he was required to file his Rule 32 notice within 90 days of 

being sentenced. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). The time limits for filing a notice 

and petition for post-conviction relief “are jurisdictional, and an untimely 

filed notice or petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.” State v. Lopez, 

234 Ariz. 513, 515, ¶ 8 (App. 2014); Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-4234(G). 

A defendant who fails to timely file a notice of post-conviction relief has no

remedy unless he or she can demonstrate, pursuant to Rule 32.1(f), that the 

“failure to file a notice of post-conviction relief of-right . . . within the 

prescribed time was without fault on the defendant’s part.” Lopez, 234 Ariz. 

at 515, ¶ 9.

¶4 Although Hennix asserts his untimely Rule 32 notice was 

without fault on his part, and he claims his attorney failed to follow his 

instruction to file a timely petition, Hennix has not explained why he 

waited more than two years to file the notice. The absence of such an 

explanation is particularly problematic because defense counsel was 

allowed to withdraw from Hennix’s representation one week after 

sentencing. 

¶5 Hennix also asserts his petition should not have been 

dismissed because he is actually innocent of the charge of promoting 

contraband due to duress. He contends he possessed the contraband 

because of duress, so Rule 32.1(h) provides grounds for his petition because 

“no reasonable fact-finder would have found [him] guilty of the underlying 

offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” We conclude otherwise.
STATE v. HENNIX

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 A duress defense is available only if “a reasonable person 

would believe that he was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct 

by the threat or use of immediate physical force against his person.” A.R.S. 

§ 13-412(A). The duress “must be present, imminent and impending.” State v. 

Kinslow, 165 Ariz. 503, 505 (1990) (no error in precluding duress defense 

where evidence showed defendant who had escaped from prison faced no 

imminent physical injury despite “shoot to kill” order). When a Rule 32 

petition is untimely, Rule 32.2(b) preserves a claim of actual innocence if the 

defendant alleges substantial claims, supported with specific facts, and 

adequately explains why the claims are untimely. Hennix’s petition offers 

no facts suggesting a specific imminent threat, relying instead on general 

allegations of dangers posed by white supremacist prisoners to black 

prisoners and threats by “strangers.” 

¶7 Based on the record before it, the superior court did not abuse 

its discretion in summarily dismissing the Rule 32 proceeding.

CONCLUSION

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.