NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Respondent
,

v.

ANTHONY WILLIAM COLEMAN
, Petition e r

.

N o . 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0221 PRPC

Petition for Review fro m the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. C R2007

- 132471 The Honorable Barbara L. Spencer
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

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

Anthony William Coleman, San Luis P e titioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined.STATE v. COLEMAN Decision of the Court

2 T H U M M A , Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Ant h ony William Coleman, Jr. seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief
, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gut ierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). Finding no such error, this court grants review but denies relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Coleman of second degree murder and misconduct involving weapons. The superior court sentenced Coleman to an aggregate term of 16 years’ imprisonment and his convictions and
sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Coleman , 1 CA

- CR 08

- 0605 (Ariz. App. Sept. 10, 2009) (mem. decision). Coleman now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his third successive petition for post

- conviction relief. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 Coleman argues Martinez v. Ryan , __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), constitutes a significant chang e in the law that allows him to raise an untimely claim of ineffective assistance of his first post

- conviction relief counsel. Coleman argues counsel who represented him in his first post

conviction relief proceeding was ineffective by fail ing to raise var ious claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Martinez held that
, “ [w] here, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial

- review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial

- review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective. ” __ U.S. at __, 132 S. Ct. at 1320. Under Martinez , Colema n may seek habeas corpus relief in federal court based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel if he can first show either he had no counsel in his first post

- conviction relief proceeding

or if counsel in his first post

- conviction relief proceeding was ineffective. Martinez does not , however, require a state court to consider all untimely claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in state post

- conviction relief proceedings.STATE v. COLEMAN Decision of the Court

3 ¶4 For these reasons, this court grant s review but denies relief.