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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

LOUIS JAMES MANGANIELLO, JR., Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0020 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2008-131377-002 

The Honorable Pamela D. Svoboda, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Andrea L Kever

Counsel for Respondent 

Louis James Manganiello, Jr., Eloy

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

FILED 9-10-2019
STATE v. MANGANIELLO

Decision of the Court

2 

M c M U R D I E, Judge: 

¶1 Louis James Manganiello, Jr., petitions this court to review the 

dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed according to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32. We have considered the 

request for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Manganiello pled guilty in February 2009 to aggravated 

taking the identity of another, a class 3 felony. The superior court 

suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Manganiello on four 

years of supervised probation to commence upon his discharge from prison 

in another matter.

¶3 Manganiello was released, and halfway through his

probation term, the State petitioned the court to revoke his probation. The 

State alleged Manganiello violated his probation conditions by continuing 

to engage in criminal conduct. The court found the allegation proven but

reinstated Manganiello to a four-year probation term. 

¶4 Approximately four months later, the State alleged 

Manganiello committed additional criminal offenses and again petitioned

to revoke his probation. Before the superior court conducted the revocation 

proceeding, Manganiello filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming 

he was incompetent to plead guilty in 2009 and he lacked the requisite mens 

rea to commit aggravated taking the identity of another. Manganiello also 

raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim arguing plea counsel 

allegedly misstated circumstances surrounding the plea. The court revoked

Manganiello’s probation and imposed a 3.5-year prison term, and

summarily dismissed Manganiello’s Rule 32 petition. This petition for 

review followed.

¶5 “We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a petition for 

post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Swoopes,

216 Ariz. 390, 393, ¶ 4 (App. 2007). The petitioner bears the burden of 

establishing an abuse of discretion. State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 

(App. 2011). 

¶6 The superior court correctly dismissed the Rule 32 

proceeding. A notice of post-conviction relief may be summarily dismissed 

as untimely if it is not filed within 90 days of the entry of judgment, State v. 

Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 266, ¶ 7 (App. 1999), and Manganiello’s challenge to 

his guilty plea was untimely by almost eight years. None of Manganiello’s 

claims fall under Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) and therefore, Rule 32’s time 
STATE v. MANGANIELLO

Decision of the Court

3 

requirement applies. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). Even if his claims could be 

construed as encompassing an exception to the time bar, Manganiello failed 

to support his claim. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.5(d) (“The defendant must 

attach to the petition any affidavits, records, or other evidence currently 

available to the defendant supporting the petition’s allegations.”). Instead, 

without further explanation, Manganiello stated he failed to commence 

timely the Rule 32 proceeding due to “excusable neglect.” Excusable neglect 

does not obviate the jurisdiction bar. See A.R.S. § 13-4234(G) (“The time 

limits [in Rule 32] are jurisdictional, and an untimely filed notice or petition 

shall be dismissed with prejudice.”).

¶7 We grant review but deny relief.