NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 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.

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 Petitioner
State 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 agreement 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 counsel and a claim that his plea was 

involuntary. Treating the Writ as a petition 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 notice that counsel had reviewed the 

record and found no issues to present 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 waived. 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. Because 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 court 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.