NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

WILLIE LEE PARKER, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0002 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR2008-165225-001

 CR2009-180397-001

 CR2010-005826-001

The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

William Lee Parker, Phoenix

Petitioner Pro Se
STATE 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. Stat. ("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 court summarily dismissed. Parker now seeks 

review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶3 Parker contends the factual basis for each plea was

insufficient because newly discovered evidence shows that his license was 

not suspended, canceled, revoked, refused, 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 

ineffective 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 ineffective 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 for 
STATE v. PARKER

Decision of the Court

3

failing to present his claims, supported with the 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 

suspended, canceled, revoked, refused, or otherwise restricted at the time 

of the offenses. 

¶5 Although the petition for review arguably presents 

additional issues, 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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

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