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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

DILLON DELIN CARTER
, Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0221 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201700370 The Honorable Debra R. Phelan
, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES
Yavapai County Attorney’s Office
, Prescott By Karolina J. Czaplinska Counsel for Respondent

Dillon Delin Carter
, Kingman Petitioner FILED 2-16-2023STATE v. CARTER Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Randall M. Howe
, and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the c our t.

PER CURIUM :

¶1 Dillon Delin Carter petitions this court for review of the dismissal of his petition for post

- conviction relief. F or reasons stated, we grant review and deny relief.

¶2 Carter pled guilty to attempt ed sexual conduct with a minor, molestation of a child, and sexual abuse, all dangerous crimes against children (“DCAC”) . In 2017, the trial court sentenced Carter to a flat term of 10 years ’ i m prison ment, followed by lifetime probation. In 2022, Carter petition ed for post

- conviction relief. The court summarily dismissed the petition because it was untimely. This petition for review follow ed

. ¶3 Carter claims newly discovered evidence and a significant change in the law entitl e him to an evidentiary hearing. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(e)
, (g). Specifically, he argues that a 2021 amendment to A.R.S. § 13

- 702(A) constitutes a significant change in law and that he should be resentenced as a first

- time felony offen der instead of a DCAC offender

. ¶4 We review the trial court ’ s denial of post

- conviction relief for an abuse of discretion

. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012)

. ¶5 Generally, a defendant must petition for post

- conviction relief within 90 days af ter sentencing. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.4(b)(3)(A). However, a claim arising under Rules 33.1(b) through (h) may be filed after 90 days , if the defendant “ explain [s] the reasons

. . . for not raising the claim in a timely

manner. ” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33 .2(b)(1) . The defendant must also file the claim “within a reasonable time after discovering the basis for the claim.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.4(b)(3)(B).

¶6 Carter offer ed no explan ation why he failed to timely raise his claim

. Consequently, it is precluded. Carter also fail ed to raise a colorable claim because he d id not identify what amend ment to § 13

- 702 constituted a “transformative event” that applies to his case. State v. Shrum , 220 Ariz. 115, 120, ¶ 15 (2009). Furthermore, a new legal claim is not newlySTATE v. CARTER Decision of the Court

3 discovered evidence under the rule. See State v. Serna , 167 Ariz. 373 , 374 (1991) ( describing the elements required for a claim of newly discovered evidence)

. For these reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Carter’s claims.

¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but den y relief.