State v. Trejo-Martin

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

BRAULIO TREJO-MARTIN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0712 PRPC FILED 1-12-2017

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2010-134281-001

The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Braulio Trejo-Martin, Florence

Petitioner Pro Se STATE v. TREJO-MARTIN

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Braulio Trejo-Martin petitions this court for review of the summary dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. Trejo-Martin pled guilty to molestation of a child and two counts of attempted molestation of a child in 2011. Trejo-Martin argues his trial counsel and his first post-conviction relief counsel were ineffective. He further argues the superior court erred when it imposed an aggravated term of imprisonment for the count of molestation of a child.

¶2 We deny relief. Trejo-Martin could have raised the sentencing issues as well as the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his first post-conviction relief proceeding. He could have raised the claims of ineffective assistance of his first post-conviction counsel in a timely second petition for post-conviction relief in 2012. Any claim a defendant could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply.

¶3 We grant review but deny relief.

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