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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE .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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent , v. M ARTIN RIVERA - LONGORIA , Petitioner . No. 1 CA- CR 16-0864 PRPC

P etition 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 M artin Rivera - Longoria , Florence Petitioner FILED 9-14-2017STATE 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 dism issal 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. A pp. 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 - con viction relief within 45 days . Rivera - Longoria never filed a petition and the superior cou rt dismissed the proceedings 11 months after the deadline passed . Ten months after the court dismissed the proceedings , Rivera - Longor i a filed a motion for reconsideration. T he superior court denied the motion as untimely because Rivera - Longor i a 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 counse l 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 w ho 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 i s 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 cou rt allowed counsel to withdraw. It is also important to note that Rivera - Longoria has never identified any iss ues 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.