NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Respondent
,

v.

RONNIE BUSTAMANTE OROZCO
, Petitioner

.

N o . 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0015 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. C R2011

- 114544

- 003 The Honora ble Cynthia Bailey
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Ronnie Bustamante Orozco
, Buckeye

PetitionerSTATE v. OROZCO Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

N O R R I S , Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Ronnie Bustamante Orozco petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post

- conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Orozco ple a d ed guilty to theft and theft of means of transportation . T he superior court sentenced him to a stipulated term of 14 years for the theft offense and eight years for the theft of means of transportation offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. Orozco filed a n in propria persona petition for post

- conviction relief of

- right after his counsel found no colorable claims for relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(c)(2). The superior court summarily dismissed the petition
, and Orozco now seeks review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c ).

¶3 Orozco argues he is entitled to post

- conviction relief because his counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately investigate his case

. Orozco asserts that had counsel been more thorough, c ounsel would have learned there was neither a warrant for Orozco ’ s arrest, which Orozco contends occurred on private property, nor probable cause to make a warrantless arrest. Orozco relatedly argues the absence of a warrant invalidates the sufficiency of the factual basis for his pleas.

¶4 “ Probable cause to arrest without a warrant exists if the arresting officer possesses information sufficient to justify a reasonable and prudent person in believing that a felony has been committed by the individual arrested. ” State v. Valle , 196 Ariz. 324, 330, ¶ 21, 996 P .2d 125, 131 (App. 2000) (citation omitted). Here, the record reveals law enforcement officers conducted surveillance and observed Orozco operate a stolen backhoe. Officers later observed Orozco pulling a stolen trailer behind his truck. When officers t ried to pull Orozco over, he ran from them . Officers later arrested him at the courthouse following a hearing in another matter. The officers did not need to obtain a warrant because theySTATE v. OROZCO Decision of the Court

3 had observed Orozco operating stolen equipment. Thus, Orozco’s co unsel did not have a basis to challenge the warrantless arrest and was not ineffective. We therefore reject Orozco’s argument he is entitled to post

conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficiency of a factual basis for his pleas

. 1

¶5 Orozco also argues he is entitled to post

- conviction relief because of newly discovered evidence. In support of this argument, he again relies on the absence of a warrant and counsel’s failure to conduct a thorough investigation a s well as the absence of DNA evidence to connect him to the offenses.

¶6 As already discussed, Orozco’s counsel was not ineffective in not challenging t he warrantless arrest. And, t he absence of DNA evidence is irrelevant. As the superior court correctly noted, “the warrantless arrest, lack of probable cause and lack of DNA [evidence] were known to [Orozco] at the time of the plea agreement and therefore are inappropriate for relief under a newly discovered evidence remedy

. ” Accordingly, we reject Orozco’s argume nt he is entitled to post

- conviction relief because of newly discovered evidence

.
¶7 T he petition for review presents additional issues, but Orozco did not raise those issues in his petition for post

- conviction relief

. T herefore, we will not address them. See State v. Bortz , 169 Ariz. 575, 577
, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991) (petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the superior court) ; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

¶8 For the above reasons , we deny relief.

1 We also note that at the change of plea hearing, defense counsel summarized the factual basis for Orozco’s pleas, and he confirmed its accuracy.