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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

BOBBY LEE WORLEY, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0580 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-137096-001

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Bobby Lee Worley, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

FILED 10-19-2017
STATE v. WORLEY

Decision of the Court

2

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Bobby Lee Worley petitions this Court for review from the 

dismissal of his successive post-conviction relief proceeding. We have 

considered the petition for review and for the reasons stated, grant review 

but deny relief.

¶2 Worley pled guilty to one count of sexual conduct with a 

minor and two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor, all 

dangerous crimes against children. He also admitted that his crimes had

“resulted in emotional harm to the victim.” The trial court accepted the plea

agreement and sentenced Worley to an aggravated 25-year imprisonment 

term for sexual conduct with a minor, and concurrent lifetime probation 

terms for the two attempt offenses.

¶3 In January 2014, Worley timely petitioned for post-conviction 

relief (“PCR”), but appointed counsel found no claims. Worley then filed a

PCR pro se. He claimed that his sentences had been illegally enhanced and 

aggravated, and asked the court to reduce his prison sentence.

1 Finding no 

colorable claims, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition. Even 

though the trial court granted two extensions, Worley did not petition this 

Court for review.

¶4 In August 2016, Worley raised these claims again in a “Motion 

for Clarification and Correction of an Unlawful Sentence,” and he added a 

claim that his sentences were required to run concurrently. In an apparent 

attempt to avoid preclusion, Worley instructed the trial court not to treat 

his motion “as anything other than a Motion.” The trial court found that the 

claims were meritless and denied the motion. Worley filed a notice of 

appeal from the trial court’s ruling.

¶5 Because Worley has attacked his sentence in his motion, we 

treat his motion and his “appeal” as a PCR and a petition for review of the 

denial of his PCR under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.3. Absent 

an abuse of discretion, this Court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling on 

 

1 Although Worley’s prison sentence was aggravated, none of the 

sentences were “enhanced” under our criminal code. Worley confuses the 

sentencing ranges for “dangerous crimes against children” pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 13–705, with the sentencing ranges for “dangerous” offenses set 

forth in § 13–704. 
STATE v. WORLEY

Decision of the Court

3

a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 

(2012). Worley has failed to show any abuse of discretion.

¶6 Pursuant to Rule 32.1(c), an unlawful sentence is grounds for 

relief in a timely filed PCR. But relief sought under Rule 32.1(c) is not 

exempt from preclusion. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), (b). Arizona Revised 

Statutes section 13–4234(G) provides that the time limits for filing a notice 

and petition for post-conviction relief “are jurisdictional, and an untimely 

filed notice or petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.” State v. Lopez, 234 

Ariz. 513, 515 ¶ 8 (App. 2014). The fact that an error may be fundamental 

does not mean that it cannot be precluded. If the supreme court “had 

intended that fundamental error be an exception to preclusion under Rule 

32.2, the court presumably would have expressly said so in the rule itself[.]” 

State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 403 ¶ 42 (App. 2007); see also State v. Peek, 219 

Ariz. 182, 183 ¶ 4 (2008) (claim of illegal sentence must be timely presented). 

Consequently, Worley’s claims were, or could have been, raised in the

earlier PCR proceeding and are precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a).

¶7 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.