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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MELVIN D. HIBBLER, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0428 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-107599-001 

The Honorable Daniel J. Kiley, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent 

Melvin D. Hibbler, Phoenix

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

FILED 8-31-2017
STATE v. HIBBLER

Decision of the Court

2 

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Melvin D. Hibbler petitions this court for review 

from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have 

considered the petition for review and grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Hibbler pled guilty to aggravated driving under the 

influence, a class 4 felony. Pursuant to the plea stipulation, the superior 

court sentenced him to 2.5 years in prison. Hibbler filed a successive, 

untimely petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) over one year after he 

entered his plea of guilty. He alleged his counsel was ineffective by not 

filing a timely appeal after Hibbler directed him to do so, that he entered a 

plea even though his blood alcohol content (BAC) was not available to

present to the court, and the superior court should have considered

adjudicating his case in “[M]ental [H]ealth [C]ourt.” The superior court 

summarily dismissed his petition, including rejecting his claim that his BAC 

constituted newly discovered evidence and finding his ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim untimely. 

¶3 In his petition for review, Hibbler reframes arguments which 

are not contained in his PCR. First, he asserts that his plea attorney was 

ineffective because he failed to advise him of the PCR time limits. Second, 

he claims counsel was ineffective because he failed to determine his BAC 

prior to the entry of a plea and now argues counsel had access to the “blood 

kit” before his court appearance. Third, Hibbler also claims his plea was not 

voluntary because he did not have the BAC results. Issues not presented to 

the superior court may not be presented in the petition for review.1 See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980). Lastly, 

Hibbler argues that because his BAC results were not presented to the 

superior court, the superior court should have dismissed his case. The 

record shows he entered a plea and waived all non-jurisdictional defenses. 

See State v. Flores, 218 Ariz. 407, 409-10, ¶ 6 (App. 2008).2 

 

1 Additionally, regarding his argument that his plea attorney failed to 

advise him of the PCR time limits, Hibbler signed the Notice of Rights of 

Review After Conviction and Procedure. He therefore provided an 

insufficient factual basis to support his claims. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9 

(c)(1)(iii).

2 The only evidence in the appellate record indicates Hibbler had a 

BAC of .22. Even if the court considered Hibbler’s argument, the BAC 
STATE v. HIBBLER

Decision of the Court

3 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.

 

information would not have “changed the verdict or sentence.” See Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 32.1(e)(3).