Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0004-PR
05-10-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GUILLERMO ORTEGA III, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Bradley D. Beauchamp, Gila County Attorney By June Ava Florescue, Deputy Gila County Attorney, Globe Counsel for Respondent Guillermo Ortega III, Eloy In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Gila County
No. S0400CR201300250
The Honorable Timothy M. Wright, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Bradley D. Beauchamp, Gila County Attorney
By June Ava Florescue, Deputy Gila County Attorney, Globe
Counsel for Respondent
Guillermo Ortega III, Eloy
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Guillermo Ortega III seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Ortega has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Ortega was convicted of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and four counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling thirty-eight years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Ortega, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0202 (Ariz. App. Sept. 3, 2015) (mem. decision).
¶3 Ortega sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and found no claims to raise in a Rule 32 proceeding. Ortega then filed a pro se petition raising numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The trial court summarily denied relief, and this petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Ortega repeats his claims of ineffective assistance. We need not address these claims, however, because his notice of post-conviction relief was not timely filed. Pursuant to Rule 32.4(a)(2)(D), Ortega was required to file his notice "no later than 30 days after the issuance of the order and mandate in [his] direct appeal." The time limits provided in Rule 32.4(a) are jurisdictional. See A.R.S. § 13-4234(G); State v. Lopez, 234 Ariz. 513, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). Our mandate issued April 1, 2016. Ortega's notice, however, was signed May 13, 2016, and filed May 16, 2016. Thus, he was limited to claims arising under Rule 32.1(d) through (h). Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a)(2)(A). He has raised no such claim.
¶5 We grant review but deny relief.