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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

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; RELIEF 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 court.
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 proceedings filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 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. On 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. This Court affirmed

Morris’ convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Morris, 

1 CA-CR 05-1253 (Ariz. App. Dec. 21, 2006) (mem. decision). 

¶3 On August 27, 2007, Morris filed an untimely notice of postconviction relief, requesting relief in the form of a delayed Rule 32 

proceeding. The trial court summarily dismissed that proceeding based on 

a finding Morris had failed to establish meritorious reasons why the failure 

to file a timely notice of post-conviction relief was without fault on his part. 

¶4 On April 19, 2013, Morris commenced a second Rule 32 postconviction relief proceeding in which he alleged claims of ineffective 

assistance of trial and appellate counsel, Miranda and privilege violations, 

and prosecutorial misconduct. On May 8, 2013, the trial court summarily 

dismissed that 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 permitting 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, 

the trial court summarily dismissed that 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 second post-conviction proceeding

on May 8, 2013. After this Court returned the notice of appeal for noncompliance 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 review the 

summary dismissal of a Rule 32 post-conviction relief proceeding for an 
STATE 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 those matters, a defendant is limited to raising

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 postconviction 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 court 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 jurisdiction 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.