NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

WILLIE LEE PARKER , Petitioner

.
N o . 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0002 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No s

. CR2008

- 165225

- 001 CR2009

- 180397

- 001 CR2010

- 005826

- 001 The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

William Lee Parker , Phoenix Petitioner Pro SeSTATE v. PARKER Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani, Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the court.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Willie Lee Parker petitions for review from the dismissal of his petition for post

- conviction relief. We grant review but deny relief.
¶2 Parker pled guilty to one count of aggravated driving under the influence ( " DUI") in three separate cases ; the trial court sentenced him to stipulated, concurrent terms of ten years' imprisonment for each count. The counts were aggravated because Parker committed each DUI while his driver ' s license or privilege to drive was suspended, canceled, revoked , or refused , or while a restriction was placed on his license as a result of a prior DUI. See Ariz. Rev. St at. ("A.R.S.") § 28

- 1383(A)(1). Parker did not file a timely petition for post

- conviction relief of

- right in any of the three cases. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32. 4(a) (defendant must initiate an "of

- right" Rule 32 proceeding within 90 days after entry of judgment and sentence)

. He later filed a pro se consolidated petition for post

- conviction relief which the trial cour t summarily dismissed

. Parker now see ks review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).
¶3 Parker contends the factual bas i s for each plea was insufficient because newly discovered evidence shows that his license was not suspended, canceled, revoked, refus ed , or otherwise restricted at the time of the offenses. He further argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue below . The trial court ruled that the assertions regarding the factual bases for the pleas and claim of inef fective assistance of counsel were precluded as untimely. It further ruled that the supporting evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence.
¶4 We deny relief. Parker could have raised his claims regarding the factual bases for the pleas and ine ffective assistance of counsel in a timely petition for post

- conviction relief of

- right . Further, he could have supported those timely claims with the documentation he now claims to be newly discovered evidence. Parker offers no explanation forSTATE v. PARKER Decision of the Court

3 failing to present his claims, supported with th e documentation, in a timely of

- right petition for post

- conviction relief

. Any claim a defendant raised or could have raised in an earlier post

- conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Further , the documents Parker asserts are newly discovered do not prove that his license was not suspen ded, canceled, revoked, refused, or otherwise restricted at the time of the offenses.
¶5 Although the petition for review arguably presents additional is sues, Parker did not raise those issues in the petition for post

- conviction relief filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Bortz , 169 Ariz. 575, 577 , 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ari z. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).
¶6 For the reasons stated, we grant review and deny relief.