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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. JUAN IRINEO RAMIREZ , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 15

- 0428 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No s . CR 2013

- 002640

- 001 ; CR2013

- 417560

- 001 The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Jr. , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent
Juan Irineo Ramirez , Phoenix Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.STATE v. RAMIR EZ Decision of the Court

2 H O W E, Judge : ¶1 Juan Irineo Ramirez petitions this Court for review from the summary dismissal of his petition for post

- conviction relief

. We review the summary dismissal of a post

- conviction relief proceeding for abuse of discretion

. State v. Bennett , 213 Ariz. 562, 566 ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006)

. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 In CR2013

- 002640, Ramirez pled guilty to criminal impersonation, a class 6 felony, and trafficking in the identity of another, a class 2 felony

. Simultaneously, i n CR2013

- 417560, Ra mirez pled guilty to possession or use of a danger ous drug, a class 4 felony. The trial court sentenced him pursuant to the plea agreement s to an aggravated two

- year prison term on the criminal impersonation conviction with 201 days ’ pre sentence incarceration credit . The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence on the trafficking in the identity of another and the possession or use of a dangerous drug convictions and placed him on concurrent probation terms of 18 months. As a cond ition of his probation in CR2013

- 002640 , Ramirez had to serve a six

- month jail term following his two

- year prison term. Additionally, the concurrent probation term in CR2013

- 417560 included Drug Court conditions. ¶3 Ramirez filed a timely notice of post

- conv iction relief

. After appointed counsel notified the court that he was unable to discern any colorable claims for relief, Ramirez filed a pro se petition for post

- conviction relief alleging claims of illegal search and seizure , ineffective assistance of

cou nsel, and error in calculation of credit for presentence incarceration

. Finding no material issues of fact or law that would entitle Ramirez to relief, the trial court d eni ed the petition

. ¶4 In his petition for review, Ramirez argues that the trial court erred by denying his petition because the police violated his rights by conducting an illegal search and seizure and that his counsel was ineffective in not moving to suppress the fruits of the illegal search and seizure

. But t he entry of a guilty plea waives all non
- jurisdictional defects , including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, other than claims of ineffectiveness relat ing to the validity of the plea

. State v. Quick , 177 Ariz. 314, 316, 868 P.2d 327, 329 (App. 1993)

. Ramirez ’s claims based on the search and seizure by the police are not directly related to the entry of his pleas and therefore have been waived

. Id

.STATE v. RAMIR EZ Decision of the Court

3 ¶5 Ramirez also reurges his claim that he is entitled to additional credit for presentence incarceration

. A defendan t is entitled to credit for all time spent in custody pursuant to an offense until the defendant is sentenced

. A.R.S. § 13

– 712(B)

. ¶6 Ramirez was indicted on June 12, 2013, with respect to the charges in CR2013

- 002640. The record reflects that he was arrested and booked on the se charges on September 13, 2013 , and held in jail until he was sentenced on April 3, 2014, for a total of 201 days in custody

. The record further reflects that the time he spent in custody between April 19, 2013 and June 7, 2013, on which Ramirez bases his claim for additional credit for presentence incarceration , related to the possession conviction, not the criminal impersonation conviction he received a prison sentence for. B ecause Ramirez was credited with the 201 days he spen t in custody for the cri minal impersonation conviction, the trial court did not err by finding that Ramirez failed to state a colorable claim for additional credit for presentence incarceration. ¶7 Accordingly, we grant review, but deny relief.