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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

RICHARD LEE BIVENS , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0578 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. V1300CR820060419 The Honorable Joseph C. Butner, III
, Judge (Retired)

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL
Yavapai County Attorney’ s Office , P rescott By Robert J. Johnson Counsel for Respondent

Richard Lee Bivens
, Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Peter B

. Swann joined. FILED 9-7-17STATE v. BIVENS Decision of the Court

2 C R U Z , Judge:

¶1 Richard Lee Bivens petitions this C ourt for review from the dismissal of his peti tion for pos t

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32

. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Bivens accepted a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to
two counts of attempted molestation of a child, and one count of sexual abuse of a child. H e was sentenced to an aggravated sentence of fifteen years , to be followed by lifetime probation

. After sentencing
, Bivens was given a Notice of Rights of Review Aft er Conviction, which he signed.

¶3 Over nine years later, Bivens filed a document titled Permissio n to File Delayed Untimely Post

- Conviction Relief. The request was not supported by any memorandum of law or e vidence. In that pleading Bivens cited to Rule 32. 1 (a), (c), (e), and (f) without any factual or legal basis to support his claims , nor explanation as to why he failed to f ile until nine years after his conviction and sentence. T he superior court denied Bivens ’ request , stating the request had been filed “years beyond the time [ when ] a Post

- Conviction R elief Request should be filed.”

¶4 The reviewing court will not reverse a trial court’s summary dismissal of post

- conviction relief proceedings unless it finds an abuse of discretion. State v. Ward , 211 Ariz. 158, 161, ¶ 7, 118 P.3d 1122, 1125 (App. 2005); State v. Watton , 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990). “A court abuses its discretion if a decision is manifestly unreasonable or is based on untenable grounds[,]” Schwartz v . Superior Cou rt , 186 Ariz. 617, 619, 925 P.2d 1068, 1070 (App. 1996), or if the reasons given for its action are legally incorrect. State ex rel. Thomas v. Newell , 221 Ariz. 112, 114, ¶ 6, 210 P.3d 1283, 1285 (App. 2009 ).

¶5 In his request to file an untime ly petition for post

- conviction relief, Bivens offered nothing that would indi cate e xactly what claims he

was raising or why he did not file a petition for relief in a timely manner. He cited to Rule 32(a), (c), (e)
, and (f)
, but went no furt her. In his Petition for Review
, Bivens does set forth his claims regarding the alleged illegality of his lifetime probation
, however
, these claims were not included in his superior court filing. Issues not first presented to the trial court may not be presented in the petition for review. State v. Bortz , 169 Ariz. 575, 57 7 , 821 P.2d 236 , 23 8 (App. 1991) ; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii)

.STATE v. BIVENS Decision of the Court

3 ¶6 The superior court did not abuse its discretion by sum maril y dismissing Bivens ’ Permission to File Delayed Untimely Post

- Conviction Relief as untimely . Nine ye ars have passed and Bivens failed to allege any specific exceptions to Rule 32
, which would allow him relief
, nor has he offered any excuse for the delay.

¶7 We grant review but deny relief.