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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

CHRISTOPHER JOHN WELLS, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0882 PRPC 

 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2010-160189-001 

The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge 

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED 

COUNSEL 

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix 

By Diane Meloche 

Counsel for Respondent

Christopher John Wells, Buckeye 

Petitioner 
STATE v. WELLS 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding 

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. 

 K E S S L E R, Judge: 

¶1 Christopher John Wells 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 and deny 

relief. 

¶2 Wells pled guilty to armed robbery and aggravated assault. 

The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 9.25 years’ 

imprisonment as stipulated in the plea agreement. Wells seeks review of 

the summary dismissal of his first untimely petition for post-conviction 

relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 

13-4239(C) (2010). See also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c). 

¶3 Wells contends his aggravated sentence of 9.25 years’ 

imprisonment for armed robbery is illegal because the trial court, rather 

than a jury, determined the existence of aggravating circumstances for 

sentencing purposes. He also contends his trial counsel was ineffective. 

¶4 Wells could have raised both of these issues in a timely 

petition for post-conviction relief of-right pursuant to Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 32.1. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) (notice of petition for 

post-conviction relief in “a Rule 32 of-right proceeding” must be filed 

within ninety days after the entry of judgment). Any claim a defendant 

could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is 

precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Although Wells asserts he is entitled 

to raise these issues in an untimely manner, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b), 

based on a significant change in the law, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g), Wells 

has failed to present a colorable claim because he does not identify or 

otherwise explain the change in the law. Regarding the claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, Wells has also failed to present a colorable claim for 

relief because he does not explain how his counsel was ineffective. 

¶5 If Wells meant to incorporate by reference the issues and 

arguments he presented below in his petition for post-conviction relief 
STATE v. WELLS 

Decision of the Court 

3 

rather than making the arguments in his petition for review, he may not do 

so. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv) (requiring petition for review contain 

“[t]he reasons why the petition should be granted” and either an appendix 

or “specific references to the record,” but “shall not incorporate any 

document by reference, except the appendices”); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

32.9(c)(1)(ii) (requiring petition for review state “the issues which were 

decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the 

appellate court for review”); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, ¶ 12 n.4, 251 

P.3d 1045, 1048 n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address argument not raised 

in petition for review). 

¶6 We grant review and deny relief.