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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARTIN RIVERA-LONGORIA, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0864 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201200059 

The Honorable Dan R. Slayton, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By William P. Ring

Counsel for Respondent 

Martin Rivera-Longoria, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 9-14-2017
STATE v. RIVERA-LONGORIA

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Martin Rivera-Longoria petitions this court for 

review from the summary dismissal of his first post-conviction relief

proceeding. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons 

stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Rivera-Longoria of six counts of child abuse, 

all dangerous crimes against children.1 The superior court sentenced 

Rivera-Longoria to an aggregate term of 101 years’ imprisonment and we 

affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. 

Rivera-Longoria, 1 CA-CR 12-0506, 2013 WL 5820509 (Ariz. App. Oct. 29, 

2013) (mem. decision). Rivera-Longoria filed a timely notice of 

post-conviction relief and the superior court appointed counsel to represent 

him. After several extensions of time to file a petition and one change of 

counsel, Rivera-Longoria’s appointed counsel eventually filed notice that 

he could find no colorable claims for relief. The superior court granted 

counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered Rivera-Longoria to file a pro se

petition for post-conviction relief within 45 days. Rivera-Longoria never 

filed a petition and the superior court dismissed the proceedings 11 months 

after the deadline passed. Ten months after the court dismissed the 

proceedings, Rivera-Longoria filed a motion for reconsideration. The 

superior court denied the motion as untimely because Rivera-Longoria 

failed to file the motion within 15 days after the court dismissed the 

proceedings. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a).

¶3 In his petition for review, Rivera-Longoria argues his 

post-conviction relief counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to file 

 

1 Rivera-Longoria was originally indicted on one count of child abuse. 

Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton, ex rel. County of Coconino, 228 Ariz. 156, 157 (2011). 

After pre-trial litigation concluded, he was indicted on additional charges.
STATE v. RIVERA-LONGORIA

Decision of the Court

3 

a timely petition for post-conviction relief. He also argues the superior court 

erred when it denied his motion for reconsideration.

¶4 We deny relief. First, ineffective assistance of post-conviction 

relief counsel is not a valid claim under Rule 32 unless made against counsel 

who provided representation in an “of-right” post-conviction relief 

proceeding. State v. Pruett, 185 Ariz. 128, 131 (App. 1995). Because 

Rivera-Longoria’s convictions and sentences resulted from a jury trial, this 

post-conviction relief proceeding is not an “of-right” proceeding. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 32.1. Further, counsel did not “fail” to file a petition. Counsel 

informed the court there were no colorable claims for relief and the court 

allowed counsel to withdraw. It is also important to note that 

Rivera-Longoria has never identified any issues counsel should have 

raised. Finally, the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it 

dismissed Rivera-Longoria’s motion for reconsideration after he filed it 

nearly ten months late.

¶5 We grant review but deny relief.