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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOHN VINCENT BELLINO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0457 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2018-118327-001

No. CR 2018-001542-001

The Honorable Dewain D. Fox, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker

Counsel for Respondent

John Vincent Bellino, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 4-8-2021
STATE v. BELLINO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which 

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 John Vincent Bellino petitions this court to review the 

summary dismissal of his two notices of post-conviction relief (the “PCR

Notices”) filed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.

1 We have 

considered his petition and, for the reasons stated below, grant review but 

deny relief.

¶2 Bellino pled guilty to the possession or use of dangerous 

drugs and misconduct involving weapons in two separate cases. On 

August 26, 2019, the superior court sentenced Bellino to concurrent terms 

of 4.5 years’ imprisonment per the plea agreements. On July 28, 2020, 

Bellino filed the PCR Notices. Bellino checked boxes on each notice 

indicating that he intended to raise claims of newly discovered evidence

and excusable failure to timely file a notice of post-conviction relief. See

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(e), (f). Bellino recognized that he failed to timely file 

the notices. The PCR Notices contained no information related to either 

claim, and the only explanation Bellino offered for their untimeliness was 

that “[n]ewly [d]iscovered material facts came to view after sentencing.”

¶3 The superior court summarily dismissed the PCR Notices, 

finding, inter alia, that Bellino had failed to explain adequately why they 

were more than eight months late. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b)(1).

¶4 We review the superior court’s dismissal order for an abuse 

of discretion, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b)(1), 33.4(b)(3)(D), which is Bellino’s 

burden to establish. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). 

1 Bellino asserts the superior court improperly converted his Rule 32 

claims into Rule 33 claims. Because Bellino pled guilty to the criminal 

offenses related to the notices of post-conviction relief, the court properly 

characterized the notices as made under Rule 33. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1 (“A 

defendant may file a notice requesting post-conviction relief under this rule 

if the defendant pled guilty . . . to a criminal offense[.]”).
STATE v. BELLINO

Decision of the Court

3

An abuse of discretion is “an exercise of discretion [that] is manifestly 

unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” 

State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 (App. 1992) (quoting Williams v. Williams, 

166 Ariz. 260, 265 (App. 1990)).

¶5 A pleading defendant must file a notice within 90 days after 

the sentence’s oral pronouncement to pursue post-conviction relief. Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 33.1, 33.4(b)(3)(A). The court may summarily dismiss a notice as 

untimely if it is not filed within 90 days, State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 266, 

¶ 7 (App. 1999), unless the defendant “adequately explains why the failure 

to timely file a notice was not the defendant’s fault.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

33.4(b)(3)(D); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b)(1). When making specified 

claims under the Rules—including claims of newly discovered evidence

and a failure to timely file a notice of post-conviction relief—a pleading 

defendant must file a notice “within a reasonable time after discovering the 

basis for the claim” and “explain the reasons for not raising the claim . . . in 

a timely manner.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.4(b)(3)(B); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b)(1). 

When a defendant fails to explain an untimely notice adequately, the 

superior court may summarily dismiss it. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b)(1).

¶6 The superior court did not abuse its discretion by summarily 

dismissing the PCR Notices. By checking the box indicating the PCR 

Notices were untimely, Bellino clearly understood they were late but 

offered only that “[n]ewly [d]iscovered material facts came to view after 

sentencing” as an explanation for the untimeliness. Bellino provided no 

details about when these “material facts came to view” or any other 

information relevant to his claims’ timeliness. Thus, Bellino failed to explain 

why he filed the PCR Notices over eight months after they were due.

¶7 For the first time in his petition for review, Bellino asserts that 

“newly discovered material [came] to light” once he was given “[f]ull access 

to [his] case file.” But Bellino again offers no details concerning when he 

received the case file and did not bring this information to the superior 

court’s attention in the PCR Notices. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B) 

(limiting petition for review to “issues the trial court decided”). 

Accordingly, we conclude the court correctly dismissed the PCR Notices 

under Rule 33.2(b)(1).2

2 Because we conclude the superior court did not abuse its discretion 

by summarily dismissing the PCR Notices, we need not address Bellino’s 

claims concerning Rule 33.1(e) and (f) in his petition for review.
STATE v. BELLINO

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 We grant review but deny relief.