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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SAMMY TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0278 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2001-005407

The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Sammy Timothy Williams, Buckeye

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
STATE v. WILLIAMS

Decision of the Court

2

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Sammy Timothy Williams petitions this court for 

review from the dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction 

relief. A jury found Williams guilty of first degree felony murder. The 

superior court imposed a sentence of natural life. This court affirmed the 

conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Williams, 1 CA-CR 03-0420 

(Ariz. App. Apr. 22, 2004) (mem. decision).

¶2 In January 2015, Williams filed his seventh petition for postconviction relief and checked the boxes to raise claims of newly discovered 

material facts, a significant change in the law, and that his untimely notice 

of post-conviction relief was without fault on his own part. See Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 32.1(e)-(g). Within the petition, Williams referred to “Attachment, 

Pg. ‘3A’ — ‘3F,’” but provided no such attachment. The superior court 

dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim and noted that no 

attachments were included to support the proffered claims. 

¶3 Williams’ petition was successive and untimely, and thus he 

was required to set forth specific reasons for not timely raising his claims. 

See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). Because he failed to include an 

attachment that presumably set forth those reasons, the superior court had 

to dismiss the petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6(c) (“[T]he court shall 

identify all claims that are procedurally precluded under this rule. If the 

court, after identifying all precluded claims, determines that no remaining 

claim presents a material issue of fact or law which would entitle the 

defendant to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by 

any further proceedings, the court shall order the petition dismissed.”);

State v. Manning, 143 Ariz. 139, 141 (App. 1984) (“A petitioner must comply 

strictly with rule 32 by asserting substantive grounds which bring him 

within the provisions of the rule in order to be entitled to any relief.”) 

(citation omitted). However, rather than filing a motion for leave to amend 

his original petition to provide the necessary attachment, see Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. 32.6(d); State v. Rogers, 113 Ariz. 6, 8 (1976) (noting the “liberal policy 

toward amendments of post-conviction pleadings”), Williams moved for

rehearing, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a). That motion was denied. 

¶4 Williams’ motion for rehearing “failed to allege or set forth 

any evidence that noncompliance with the applicable rule was excusable.” 

State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577 (App. 1991). Instead, Williams’ motion 

referred to case law examining preclusion of an ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel (IAC) claim under Rule 32.2(a)(3). But Williams’ original petition

did not claim IAC or cite to any grounds for relief that would fall within the 
STATE v. WILLIAMS

Decision of the Court

3

purview of Rule 32.2(a)’s preclusive effect. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). In 

effect, Williams introduced “new matters not raised in the first petition,” 

and “a court will not entertain new matters raised for the first time in a 

motion for rehearing.” Bortz, 169 Ariz. at 577 (citing State v. Ramirez, 126 

Ariz. 464, 467 (App. 1980)); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a). 

¶5 Because Williams’ petition for review focuses on purported

IAC, a claim not raised in his original petition, he is procedurally barred 

from relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (stating petition for review 

should identify “issues which were decided by the trial court”); State v. 

Vera, 235 Ariz. 571, 573-74, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[W]e ordinarily do not 

consider issues on review that have not been considered and decided by the 

trial court; this is particularly true when we are reviewing a court’s decision 

to grant or deny post-conviction relief under Rule 32.”) (citing Ramirez, 126 

Ariz. at 468). 

¶6 We therefore grant review but deny relief.