NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY WILLIAM COLEMAN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0221 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007-132471

The Honorable Barbara L. Spencer, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Anthony William Coleman, San Luis

Petitioner

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 Anthony 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. Gutierrez, 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 change 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 postconviction relief proceeding was ineffective by failing to raise various 

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, Coleman 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 grants review but denies relief.