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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CAMERON RAY BRAXTON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0249 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2009-115945-001

The Honorable Paul J. McMurdie, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Arthur G. Hazelton, Jr.

Counsel for Respondent

Law Office of Marci A. Kratter, PC, Phoenix

By Marci A. Kratter

Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. BRAXTON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the court, in 

which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. 

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Cameron Ray Braxton 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 A jury convicted Braxton of first-degree murder, attempted 

armed robbery and burglary in the first degree, and he was sentenced in 

May 2010 to natural life and concurrent 7.5 and 10.5-year prison terms. This 

court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Braxton, 1 

CA-CR 10-0468 (Ariz. App. Jul. 26, 2011) (mem. decision). The mandate on 

the appeal was issued on September 22, 2011.

¶3 Braxton commenced a timely proceeding for post-conviction 

relief. After appointed counsel notified the superior court that counsel 

found no colorable claims to raise, Braxton filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The 

superior court struck the petition as non-compliant and directed Braxton to 

file a compliant petition within 30 days. The court later dismissed the 

proceeding at Braxton's request in September 2012. Mistakenly 

understanding that the mandate on Braxton's convictions had not yet 

issued, the court dismissed Braxton's proceeding "without prejudice so that 

the defendant may re-file it at the conclusion of his direct appeal."

¶4 In September 2015, Braxton commenced a second proceeding 

for post-conviction relief by filing a petition in which he raised three claims

of ineffective assistance of counsel. The superior court summarily 

dismissed the petition, finding that Braxton was precluded from raising the 

claims in the untimely proceeding. The court also ruled in the alternative 

that even if the claims were not time-barred, Braxton failed to present a 

colorable claim for relief. This petition for review followed.

¶5 Braxton asks this court to reverse the summary dismissal of 

his petition and remand for an evidentiary hearing on his claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, but he does not address the superior 
STATE v. BRAXTON

Decision of the Court

3

court's finding of preclusion. We review the summary dismissal of a postconviction relief proceeding for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 

Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006). We may affirm the superior court's ruling "on 

any basis supported by the record." State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 199 

(1987).

¶6 To be timely, a proceeding for post-conviction relief must be 

commenced within 90 days of entry of judgment and sentencing or within 

30 days after the issuance of the mandate on a direct appeal. Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. 32.4(a). Braxton filed the petition for post-conviction relief at issue four 

years after the issuance of the mandate on his direct appeal. An untimely 

petition "may only raise claims pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h)." 

Id.; see also State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, 118, ¶ 13 (2009) (noting "few 

exceptions" to "general rule of preclusion" for claims in untimely or 

successive petitions). Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not fall 

within Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) because they are "cognizable under 

Rule 32.1(a)." State v. Petty, 225 Ariz. 369, 373, ¶ 11 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 32.1(a) cmt. (noting claims of ineffectiveness of counsel and 

violations of other constitutional rights fall under Rule 32.1(a)). 

Accordingly, the superior court did not err in ruling that Braxton was 

precluded from raising the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in his 

untimely petition for post-conviction relief. 

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