NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Respondent
,

v.

ALGENE LOUIS BROWN
, Petitioner

.
N o . 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0029 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. C R2004

- 036553

- 001 The Honorable Pamela D. Svoboda
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENI ED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Phoenix By Nicholas Saccone Counsel for Respondent

Algene Louis Brown
, San Luis Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop deliver ed the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.STATE v

. BROWN Decision of the Court

2 W I N T H R O P , Judge:

¶1 Petitioner , Algene Louis Brown (“Brown”), seeks review of the trial court’s order dismiss ing his pet ition for post

- conviction relief
, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. After consider ing the petition for review, we grant review and deny relief for the reasons stated below

. ¶2 A jury convicted Brown of manufacture of dangerous drugs, sale of dangerous drugs, conspiracy to manufacture dangerous drugs
, and two counts of child abuse. The trial court sentenced him to a n aggregate term of 23.25 years’ imprisonment , and this court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. S ee S tate v. Brown , 1 CA

- CR 05

- 0386 (Ariz. App. Apr. 18 , 2006). Brown now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second petition for post

- conviction relief. We have jurisdiction
pur suant to Arizona Rule of Crimina l Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 Brown asserts h is trial counsel were ineffective when they failed to inform him of and/or adequately explain a favorable plea offer the State made before trial. Brown argues that had he known of the offer and/or understood its details, he would have accepted the offer r ather than go to trial. Brown claims he is entitled to raise this claim in a successive petition for post

- conviction relief based on the recent Supreme Court decisions of Missouri v. Frye , ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper
, ___ U. S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), both of which Brown argues constitute significant changes in the law. In both cases, the Supreme Court held a defendant has a right to effective assistance of counsel during the plea bargain process

. See F rye , ___ U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1407

- 08; Lafler , ___ U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1384. In Frye , the court further held the right to effective assistance includes the right to have counsel communicate all formal , favorable plea offers to the defendant. ___ U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1408.

¶4 We deny relief. Brown raised this same claim of ineffective assistance in his first petition for post

- conviction relief. Any claim a defendant raised in an earlier post

- conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32. 2(a). Further, Frye and Lafler are not significant changes in the law as applied in Arizona

. Arizona has long recognized that the right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the plea bargain process and that counsel must adequately communicate al lSTATE v

. BROWN Decision of the Court

3 plea offers to the defendant

. S ee S tate v. Donald , 198 Ariz. 406, 413, ¶ ¶ 14

- 17 , 10 P.3d 1193, 1200 (App. 2000). 1

¶5 Although the petition for review arguably presents additional issues, Brown did not raise those issues in the petition for post

conviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. S ee S tate v. Bortz , 169 Ariz. 575, 577 , 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

¶6 For the above reasons , we grant review and deny relief.

1 Although these are not the grounds upon which the trial court dismissed the petition, w e may affirm the decision of the trial court on any basis supported by the record. S ee State v. Robinson , 1 53 Ariz. 191, 199, 735 P.2d 801, 809 (1987).