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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

TRAVIS WRIGHT
, Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 15

- 0728 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. V1300CR9980184 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL
Yavapai County Attorney ’ s Office , P rescott By Sheila Sullivan Polk Counsel for Respondent

Travis Wright
, Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge James P. Beene joined.STATE v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court

2 T H U M M A , Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Travis Wright seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- convi ction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (2017)

. 1 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 57 3, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Finding no such error, this court grants review but denies relief.

¶2 After Wright was indicted on three felony charges in 1998 , he pled guilty to one count of sexual conduct with a minor , a Class 6 undesignated felony. See A.R.S. § 13

- 140 5. The superior court suspended his sentence and placed him on two years’ supervised probation, with an initial thirty days in jail

. Nearly a decade later, the S tate moved to have Wright register as a sex offender , which the superior court granted in 2008. See A.R.S. § 13

- 3821 . Wright filed a petition for writ of error cora m nobis in 2015. T reat ing the petition as an out

- of

- time petition for post

- conviction relief , the superior court dismissed the petition. Wright then filed a petition for review of that dismissal with this court

. ¶3 In seeking to challenge the dismissal, Wright has twice filed a “notice of appeal from decision” t hat did not comply with Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c). A petition for review must set forth sp ecific claims, present sufficient argument supported by legal authority and include citation to the record. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(i i) & (i v); see also S tate v. Rodriguez
, 227 Ariz. 58, 61 ¶ 12, n. 4, (App. 2010) (declining to address argument no t presented in petition). For this reason, this court denies relief.

¶4 Apart from this defect, Wri ght states that the plea agreement did not require him to register as a sex offender , and a review of the written plea agreement shows it was silent on the issue

. T he superior court’s judgment of guilt and sentence form does indicate that “Defendant is not required to register as a sex offender.” T he State later moved for an order requiring Wright to register as a sex offender as required by A.R.S. §13

- 3821 f or his conviction, Wright did not oppose the motion and the court granted it

. Wright argues that his offense was designated a misdemeanor, meaning the registration requirement of A.R.S. §13

- 3821 does not apply, that his plea

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.STATE v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court

3 agreement was violated by the r egistration requirement and that his petition for writ of error coram nobis has no time limit for filing

. ¶5 “A basic principle of criminal law requires that an offender be sentenced under the laws in effect at the time he committed the offense for which he is being sentenced.” State v. Newton , 200 Ariz. 1, 2 ¶ 3 (2001). The superior court erred by failing to require registration at sentencing , but corrected that error after being alerted to that fact by granting the State’s motion and requiring registration

. Moreover, that his conviction was deemed a misdemeanor does not alter his obligation to register. See State v. Cameron , 185 Ariz. 467, 469

- 70 (App. 1996). In addition, Wright fails to state a colorable claim. State v. Runningeagle , 176 Ariz. 59, 63 (1993)

. Wright’s claim is not only untimely but it is not in compliance with the rules
, and fails to raise any argument substantiated by law or fact.

¶6 For these reasons, this court grants review and denies relief.