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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

VIRGIL RAY HAMPTON , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 15

- 0214 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007

- 143631

- 001 DT No. CR2008

- 110278

- 001 DT
The Honorable Steven K. Holding , Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche Counsel for Respondent Virgil Ray Hampton , Kingman PetitionerSTATE v. HAMPTON Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge James P. Beene joined.

W I N T H R O P , Judge : ¶1 Petitioner, Virgil Ray Hampton , petitions for review of the dismissal of his second petition for post

- conviction relief

. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 A jury found Hampton guilty of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle and tampering with physical evidence in Maricopa County C ause N o. CR2007

- 143631

- 001 DT . A second jury found him guilty of resisting arrest and misconduct involving weapons in Maricopa County C ause N o. CR2008

- 110278

- 001 DT

. T his c ourt affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal, and Hampton filed timely petition s for post

conviction relief in both cases , alleging claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Th e petition s w ere summarily dismissed by the superior court in July 2011. ¶3 In January 2015, Hampton filed a n untimely consolidated second petition for post

- conviction relief in both cases , alleging his trial counsel provided i neffective assistance with regard to a joint plea offer and that he was entitled to raise thi s claim in a second petition for post

conviction relief under the “ Martinez [ e ] xception.” Ruling that Hampton had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted in an untimely and successive petition for post

- conviction relief, the superior court summarily dismissed the petition. ¶4 Relying on Martinez v. Ryan , 566 U.S. 1 (2012) , Hampton argues the superior co urt erred in ruling he is precluded from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in an untimely and successive post

- conviction relief proceeding. His reliance on Martinez is misplaced. In Martinez , the Supreme Court held that, as a matter of equity, a non

- pleading defendant may be able to obtain federal habeas review of a claim that is procedurally barred if he can show ineffective assistance of his first post

conviction counsel. 566 U.S. at 15

- 17

. However, a s explained in State v. Escareno

- Meraz , 232 Ariz. 586, 587, ¶ ¶ 4

- 6, 307 P.3d 1013, 1014 (App. 2013) ,STATE v. HAMPTON Decision of the Court

3 cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 1943 (2014), th e holding in Martinez does not apply to Arizona post

- conviction proceedings , and thus does not permit Hampton to overcome the time limits of Arizon a Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.4(a)

. Non

- pleading defendants like Hampton “have no constitutional right to counsel in post

- conviction proceedings,” Escareno

- Meraz , 232 Ariz. at 587, ¶ 4, 307 P.3d at 1014 , and therefore a claim of ineffective assistance of Rule 32 counsel is not cognizable under Rule 32.1. Nor can the underlying claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel be directly raised in an untimely and successive post

- conviction proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) ; State v. Petty , 225 Ariz. 369, 373, ¶ 11, 238 P.3d 637, 641 (App. 2010) . Thus, the superior court did not err in summar ily dismiss ing Hampton’s second petition for post

- conviction relief. ¶5 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.