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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERT STANLEY ORTLOFF, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0662 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2003-032707-001

The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By E. Catherine Leisch

Counsel for Respondent

Robert Stanley Ortloff, Fort Worth, TX

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
STATE v. ORTLOFF

Decision of the Court

2

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Robert Stanley Ortloff petitions for review of the trial court’s 

summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure. We have considered his petition 

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

¶2 In 2008, Ortloff was convicted by a jury on charges of firstdegree murder, burglary in the first degree, and arson of an occupied 

structure stemming from the murder of his business partner in 1984. The 

trial court sentenced Ortloff to life in prison with the possibility of release 

after twenty-five years for the murder together with a concurrent sevenyear prison term for the burglary and a consecutive seven-year prison term 

for arson. The trial court further ordered that the sentences be served 

consecutive to a fifty-year prison term Ortloff was serving for federal 

offenses related to the attempted murder of an Army soldier in 1986. This 

court affirmed Ortloff’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. 

Ortloff, 1 CA-CR 08-0508 (Ariz. App. Apr. 5, 2011) (mem. decision). 

¶3 In December 2011, Ortloff filed a notice of post-conviction 

relief, and appointed counsel gave notice that she found no claims to be 

raised in a Rule 32 proceeding. Ortloff thereafter filed a pro se petition for 

post-conviction relief alleging claims of prosecutorial misconduct, 

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and cumulative error. 

The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, ruling that the claims of 

prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error were precluded and that 

Ortloff failed to state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

We review the summary dismissal of a post-conviction relief proceeding for 

abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 

(2006).

¶4 We have reviewed the claims raised by Ortloff in his petition 

for post-conviction relief and the trial court’s ruling and conclude the trial 

court thoroughly addressed and correctly resolved the claims in a manner 

“that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution.” State 

v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). No purpose 

would be served by repeating the trial court’s ruling in its entirety, and we 

therefore adopt it. See Id.

¶5 In addition to challenging the trial court’s rulings on his 

claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and 

cumulative error, Ortloff argues that the trial court abused its discretion by 

failing to recognize the exception to preclusion for claims raised under 
STATE v. ORTLOFF

Decision of the Court

3

Rules 32.1(e) and 32.1(h). Although claims of newly discovered material 

facts and actual innocence are not necessarily subject to preclusion 

pursuant to Rule 32.2(a), Ortloff did not raise these claims in his petition for 

post-conviction relief. Instead, they were raised for the first time in his 

motion for rehearing and in a motion to amend petition filed after the trial 

court had already ruled on his petition for post-conviction relief. 

¶6 “The law is clear that a court will not entertain new matters 

raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing.” State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 

575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991). Furthermore, nothing in Rule 

32.6(d) ― or any other provision of Rule 32 ― permits a defendant to amend 

his or her petition after it has been dismissed. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 

464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980) (“Rule 32.6(d) requires that

amendments to pleadings be made prior to the trial court’s ruling 

dismissing the petition or prior to the trial court’s order granting or denying 

relief on the merits after a hearing on the petition pursuant to Rule 

32.8(d).”). Because the claims of newly discovered material facts and actual 

innocence were not properly placed before the trial court for consideration, 

such claims “may not be included in a subsequently filed petition for review 

by this court or subsequent pleadings.” Id.; see also Ariz. R. Crim. P.

32.9(c)(1)(ii) (petition for review must contain “issues which were decided 

by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate 

court for review”).

¶7 Ortloff additionally complains that the trial court did not rule 

on his motion for rehearing or his motion to amend his petition. Where no 

ruling is made on a motion, the motion is deemed denied by operation of 

law. State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 323, 848 P.2d 1375, 1385 (1993). There was 

no abuse of discretion in a denial of the motions as the attempt to insert new 

claims into the proceeding was untimely. See Ramirez, 126 Ariz. at 468, 616 

P.2d at 928.

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, although we grant review, we deny 

relief.