State v. Salahuddin

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

RAFEEQ QADEER SALAHUDDIN formerly known as RANDY JEROME HARRIS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0003 PRPC

FILED 9-29-2016

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 0000-144541

The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Rafeeq Q. Salahuddin, Florence

Petitioner STATE v. SALAHUDDIN

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Rafeeq Salahuddin petitions this court for review of the summary dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. A jury convicted Salahuddin of first degree murder, first degree burglary, and two counts each of kidnapping and armed robbery in 1985. Our supreme court affirmed his convictions and sentences in 1988.

¶2 Salahuddin argues his trial counsel and appellate counsel were both ineffective for a number of reasons. These claims are precluded because Salahuddin could have raised them in a timely post-conviction relief proceeding years ago. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the cases he cites represent significant changes in the law, and none of the evidence he identifies is newly discovered. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(e), (g), 32.2(b).

¶3 Salahuddin argues the United States Supreme Court decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), constitutes a significant change in the law that allows him to raise untimely claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Martinez simply held a defendant can seek habeas corpus relief in federal court based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel if the defendant either had no counsel or ineffective counsel in his first post- conviction relief proceeding. Martinez, 132 S. Ct. at 1320. Martinez does not require a state court to consider all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in untimely post-conviction proceedings.

¶4 For these reasons, we grant review and deny relief.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA