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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

DERRICK A. MORRIS , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0406 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2002

- 013178 The Honorable M. Scott McCoy , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

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

Derrick A. Morris , San Luis Petitioner Pro Se

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie , Judge Patricia K. Norris , and Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the c ourt

.STATE v. MORRIS Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM:
¶1 Derrick A. Morris seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second and third post

- conviction relief proceeding s filed pu rsuant to Ariz ona R ule of Crim inal P rocedure 32. We have considered his petition and, for the following reasons, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 A jury convicted Morris of first degree murder and attempted armed robbery . O n December 9, 2005, the trial court sentenced him to life with the possibility of release after twenty

- five years , together with a concurrent seven
- and

- one
- half

- year prison term

. Th is C ourt affirmed Morris’ convictions and sentence s on direct appeal

. State v. Morris , 1 CA

- CR 05

- 1253 ( Ariz. App. Dec. 21, 2006) (mem. decision). ¶3 O n August 27 , 2007 , Morris filed a n untimely notice of post

conviction relief , requesting relief in the form of a delayed Rule 32 proceeding. The trial court summarily dismissed that procee ding based on a finding Morris had failed to establish meritorious reason s why the failure to file a timely notice of post

- conviction relief was without fault on his part. ¶4 On April 1 9 , 2013, Morris commenced a second Rule 32 post

conviction relief proce eding in which he alleged claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, Miranda and privilege violations, and prosecutorial misconduct. O n May 8, 2013, t he trial court summarily dismissed th at proceeding on the grounds that none of the claims could be raised in an untimely or successive post

- conviction proceeding. ¶5 On May 31, 2013, Morris filed a third Rule 32 notice , together with a request for an order p ermit ting him to file a delayed appeal, claiming he was denied his right to an appeal because appellate counsel filed an Anders brief rather than raising certain issues on appeal

. On June 25, 2013, t he trial court summarily dismissed th at proceeding on the grounds that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised in an untimely or successive Rule 32 post

- conviction proceeding. ¶6 On May 31, 2013, Morris also filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his se cond post

- conviction proceeding on May 8, 2013 . After this C ourt return ed the notice of appeal for non

compliance with the requirements of Rule 32.9 (c) , Morris filed a petition for review in which he sought review of the trial court’s summary dismissal of both his second and third post

- conviction proceedings. We r eview the summary dismissal of a Rule 32 post

- conviction relief proceeding for anSTATE v. MORRIS Decision of the Court

3 abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett , 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). ¶7 The trial court did not err by summarily dismissing Morris’ second and third post

- conviction proceedings. As the court correctly observed in dismissing th ose matters , a defendant is limited to rais ing claims pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) in an untimely or successive Rule 32 proceeding

. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a)

. Both of the post

conviction proceedings at issue are untimely and successive in nature , and

none of the claims Morris asserts fall within categories of claims that may be raised in an untimely or successive post

- conviction proceeding. Thus , the trial co urt did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing the proceedings

. Morris failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted under Rule 32. See State v. Manning , 143 Ariz. 139, 141, 692 P.2d 318, 320 (1984) (appeals court has no jurisdictio n to address merits of petition where no cognizable ground under Rule 32 is asserted)

. ¶8 For the reasons stated, we grant review but deny relief.