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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

HOWARD C OCHRAN , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 14

- 0 513 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2010

- 161733

- 001 CR2011

- 101847

- 001 The Honorable Susan M. Brnovich
, Judge

REVIEW DENIED

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

Howard Cochran
, Tucson PetitionerSTATE v. COCHRAN Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the c ourt, in which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

S W A N N , Judge :

¶1 Howard Cochran petitions for review of the superior court ’ s summary dismissal of his third request for post

- conviction relief under Ariz

. R

. Crim

. P

. 32. We deny re view for the reasons stated below

. ¶2 Cochran pled guilty to misconduct involv ing weapons, a class 4 felony, with one prior felony conviction in Maricopa County Superior Court cause number CR2010

- 161733

- 001 , and b urglary in the second degree, a class 3 felony, with one prior felony conviction in Maricopa County Superior Court cause n umber CR2011

- 101847

- 001. On March 27, 2012, the superior court sentenced him to a presumptive 4.5

- year prison term on the conviction for misconduct involving weapons to be served consecutive to an aggravated 7.5

- year prison term imposed on the conviction for burglary in the second degree.

¶3 On May 9, 2012, Cochran filed a timely notice of post

conviction relief under b oth cause numbers
, alleging claims of coerced guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, suppression of evidence by the s tate, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, defective or insufficient indictment, and denial of speedy trial. A fter a ppointed counsel filed a notice stating that s he had found no claims to raise in a post

- conviction relief proceeding
, the court provided Cochran the oppo rtunity to file his own petition. In his pro per petition, Cochran sought relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, failure by the s tate to test certain evidence, denial of speedy trial, and defective or insufficient indictment. The su perior court summarily dismissed the pro per petition, finding that the claims of failure to test evidence, denial of speedy trial
, and defective indictment were waived by the guilty pleas and therefore precluded
, and that Cochran failed to state a colorab le claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This court dismissed Cochran’s petition for review from that ruling as untimely.

¶4 On September 16, 2013, Cochran filed a “ M otion for Rule 32 N ewly D iscovered E vidence” under both cause numbers
, raising cla im s of ineffective assistance of counsel and of su p press ion of evidence
,STATE v. COCHRAN Decision of the Court

3 including evidence of receipt of a speedy trial motion, by the state

. The superior court treated the motion as Cochran’s second petition for post

conviction relief and summarily dism issed it, ruling that Cochran failed to establish a colorable claim of newly discovered evidence and that his claims were untimely and successive

. ¶5 On November 12, 2013, Cochran filed a “Motion for Rehea[r]ing (Review) Rule 32.9” under both cause numbers. And o n December 18, 2013
, he filed a “ M otion to S ubmit N ew el [sic] D iscovered D ocumentation of State’s K nowledge of M otion for S peedy T rial ” under both cause numbers

. T he superior court treated the motion s as a third request for post

- conviction relief a nd summarily dismissed the request as untimely and successive. This petition for review followed.

¶6 Rule 32.9(c)(1) limits this court ’ s review to those “issues which were decided by the trial court” and are presented for review. It also provides that “[f]a ilure to raise any issue that could be raised in the petition . . . for review shall constitute waiver of appellate review of that issue.” S ee also State v. Smith , 184 Ariz. 456, 4 60 (1996) (no fundamental error review in a post

- conviction relief proceedi ng). The petitioner “shall” set forth “[t]he reasons why the petition should be granted.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(i v )

. ¶7 Cochran’s petition for review argues the merits of his evidence

- suppression claim. He makes no effort to address the superior court’s determination that his arguments were untimely and successive. Because he has failed to comply in any meaningful way with the requirements of Rule 32.9, we deny review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (review discretionary); State v. French , 198 Ar iz. 119, 122, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims for failure to comply with Rule 32.9), disapproved of on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith , 202 Ariz. 446, 450, ¶ 10 (2002).