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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

MIGUEL ALVARADO RAMIREZ, SR.
, Petitioner

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 14

- 0208 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2004

- 015568

- 001 The Honorable Joseph C. Welty
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office , Phoenix By Susan L. Luder Counsel for Respondent

Miguel Alvarado Ramirez, Sr.
, Florence PetitionerSTATE v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

M c M U R D I E
, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Miguel Alvarado Ramirez, Sr. pled guilty to second degree m urder and the superior court sentenced him to a presumptive term of sixteen years’ imprisonment. Ramirez petitions this court for review from the partial summary dismissal of his second petition for post

conviction relief. 1 He also contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion s to expand the record. 2
¶2 The trial court dismissed the petition for post

- conviction relief in an order that clearly identified and correctly ruled upon the issues Ramirez raised. Further, the court did so in a thorough, well

- reasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand the court's rulings

. Under these circumstances, “[n] o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written deci sion.” State v. Whipple , 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). Therefore, we adopt the trial court's ruling and deny relief.

¶3 Regarding expansion of the record, “ [Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32] itself does not provide a process for obtaining

1 The first petition for post

- conviction relief was denied because the notice was not timely filed . Ramirez argued that the untimely filing was not his fault, and so the superior court allowed a second filing. In the second petition, counsel for Ramirez coul d not find a colorable claim. Counsel requested, and the superior court granted
, counsel’s request that Ramirez be allowed to file a supplemental petition. Ramirez filed the supplemental petition, and the State filed a response. Based on the supplemental p etition, the superior court granted relief in part and credited Ramirez with an additional 166 days of presentence incarceration.

2 The court granted Ramirez’s firs t motion to expand the record. The supplemental motions to expand were in fact discovery m otions. Based on the superior court’s ruling on the petition, the discovery motions were
moot.STATE v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court

3 discovery in [post

- conviction relief] proceedings. ” Canion v. Cole , 210 Ariz. 598, 599, ¶ 7 (2005)

. While a superior court does have “inherent authority to grant discovery requests in [post

- conviction relief] proceedings u pon a showing of good cause[,]” i d . at 600, ¶ 1 0 , the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it held Ramirez failed to show good cause.

¶4 While the petition for review presents additional issues
, Ramirez did not raise those issues in the petition for post

- conviction relief he filed be low. A petiti on for review may not present issues not firs t presented to the trial court. A riz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Ramirez
, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff , 161 Ariz. 66, 71 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz , 169 Ariz. 575, 577

– 78 (App. 1991); s ee also S tate v. Swoopes , 216 Ariz. 390, 403, ¶ 41 (App. 2007); State v. Smith , 184 Ariz. 456, 459 (1996) ( both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post

- conviction relief proceeding). Finally, we do not address the issues R am irez first raised in his reply. See State v. Watson , 198 Ariz. 48, 51, ¶ 4 (App. 2000).

¶5 We grant review but deny relief.