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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

ANTHONY ROBERT ARANDA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0364 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-106972-001

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 3-19-2019
STATE 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 Court for review of the 

dismissal of his petition 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 sentences. Approximately two years later, Aranda petitioned the 

court for post-conviction 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 “lost 

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 April 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) (rulings on a petition for post-conviction relief are 

reviewed for abuse of discretion or error of law).

¶5 Aranda further argues that defense counsel ineffectively 

assisted him by failing to timely commence post-conviction proceedings

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 

Court will not review issues not first presented to the trial court. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(B)(ii); see also State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 

1980) (declining to address issues not presented to the trial court). 

¶6 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.