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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0666 PRPC FILED 3-31-2015

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2004-017196-001DT The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Christopher Chestnut, Phoenix Petitioner in Propria Persona

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

STATE v. CHESTNUT Decision of the Court G E M M I L L, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Christopher Chestnut petitions this court for review of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review, and for the following reasons we grant review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Chestnut of second degree murder in 2005 and the trial court sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. We affirmed Chestnut’s convictions on direct appeal. State v. Chestnut, 1 CA- CR 05-1104 (Ariz. App. Sep. 11, 2008) (mem. decision). Chestnut now seeks review of the summary dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus the trial court properly treated as Chestnut’s second petition for post- conviction relief pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.3. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 We deny relief. In his petition for review, Chestnut does not present any grounds for relief that are cognizable under Rule 32.1. He does not challenge the lawfulness or constitutionality of either his conviction or his sentence; he does not claim there is any newly discovered evidence or significant changes in the law that apply to his case; he does not argue he is innocent and does not claim the State has held him in custody after his sentence has expired. He has, therefore, failed to present a cognizable or colorable claim for relief.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.

:ama