NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DEC ISION 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.

VRIGIDO S. VALLADARES, Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA-CR 12-0654 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Apache County S0100CR2006319 S0100CR2007274 The Honorable Donna J. Grimsley, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Apache County Attorney’s Office, St. Johns By Michael B. Whiting Counsel for Respondent

Emily Danies Attorney at Law, Tucson By Emily L. Danies Counsel for PetitionerState v. Valladares Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

O R O Z C O , Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Vrigido S. Valladares (Valladares) 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 (2014). 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.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Valladares plead guilty to attempted transfer of marijuana, a class four felony, and production of marijuana, a class five felony. The trial court accepted the plea agr eement and imposed the stipulated sentences of three years’ imprisonment and one and one half years’ imprisonment, respectively. Valladares was advised of his right to seek appellate review within ninety days, but did not do so.

¶3 On August 27, 2012, more than three years following his convictions, Valladares filed a Writ of Coram Nobis in which he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of co unsel and a claim that his plea was involuntary. Treating the Writ as a pe tition for post-conviction relief, the trial court found the petition was untimely filed and denied relief.

¶4 Valladares then filed a notice of appeal and requested appointment of counsel, which the trial court granted. Counsel filed a notice of appearance, and later a no tice that counsel had reviewed the record and found no issues to presen t on review. Valladares then filed a pro se petition for review raising several issues, most of which were not presented to the trial court.

1 Absent material revisions, we cite to the current version of statutes and rules unless otherwise indicated.State v. Valladares Decision of the Court

3 Discussion

¶5 Valladares’ ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea claims are time barred and waiv ed. Pursuant to Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.1 and 32.4(a), Valladares had ninety days from the entry of judgment and sentence to raise these claims through an “of right” petition for post-conviction relief. Be cause Valladares failed to timely file an “of right” petition, his claims are now time barred.

¶6 As to the numerous other issues presented in his petition for review but not raised below, this cour t will not consider those issues. State v. Wagstaff , 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P .2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); State v. Ramirez , 126 Ariz. 464, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); State v. Bortz , 169 Ariz. 575, 578, 821 P.2d 236, 239 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

Conclusion

¶7 For the above reasons, although we grant review of Valladares’ petition, we deny relief.