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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent
,

v.

ANTHONY ROBERT ARANDA , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0364 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2015

- 106972

- 001 The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Anthony Robert Aranda
, Florence Petitioner FILED 3-19-2019STATE v. ARANDA Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

H O W E , Judge :

¶1 Anthony Robert Aranda petitions this C ourt for review of the dismissal of his peti t ion for post

- conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32

. We have considered the petition for review and for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 After Aranda pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, three counts of voyeurism, and two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor, the trial court entered judgment and imposed Aranda’s sentence s

. Approximately two years later, Aranda petitioned the court for post

- conv iction relief. 1 This petition for review followed.

¶3 In his petition for review, Aranda contends the court lacked jurisdiction to “render judgment [and] to impose sentences[.]” In what appears to be an alternative argument, Aranda also claims the court “los t jurisdiction” by summarily dismissing his Rule 32 notice. Both contentions are incorrect; the trial court has jurisdiction over state felony criminal matters, including Rule 32 proceedings. Ariz. Const. Art. 6, § 14; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1, 32.3; State v . Maldonado , 223 Ariz. 309, 312

– 13 ¶¶ 20

– 21 (2010).

¶4 Next, Aranda repeats his claim made in the trial court challenging the constitutionality of the voyeurism and sexual exploitation of a minor statutes. Claims made under Rule 32.1(a) must be raised in a timely notice for post

- conviction relief. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a)(2)(A) and (C). Aranda filed his Rule 32 petition on Apri l 9, 2018, which was more than 90 days after the court sentenced Aranda on April 12, 2016. Because Aranda did not timely commence Rule 32 proceedings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing this claim. See State v. Gutierrez
, 229

1 Aranda did not file a notice of post

- conviction relief. As did the trial court, we consider the petition to be the notice required by Rule 32.4(a)(1).STATE v. ARANDA Decision of the Court

3 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012) ( ruling s on a petitio n for post

- conviction relief are reviewed for abus e of discretion or error of law).

¶5 Aranda further argues that defense counsel ineffectively assist ed him by failing to timely commence post

- conviction proc eedings and by advising him to waive his presentence interview

. Aranda also requests that he be resentenced because various mitigating factors exist. Aranda , however, did not raise these claims before the trial court
, and this C o urt will not review issues not first presented to the trial court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P . 32.9(c)(4)(B)(ii); s ee also State v. Ramirez , 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980) (declining to address issues not presented to the trial court )

. ¶6 Accordingly , w e grant review but deny relief.