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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMES GERMAINE BOLDEN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0516 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2002-005449

The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

James Germaine Bolden, Winslow

Petitioner Pro Se

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
STATE v. BOLDEN

Decision of the Court

2

T H O M P S O N, Judge

¶1 James Germaine Bolden petitions for review of the superior 

court's summary dismissal of a “Writ of Coram Nobis – Writ of Error” 

which the court treated as a notice of post-conviction relief pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. We have considered his petition 

for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. 

¶2 A jury convicted Bolden of armed robbery. On December 18, 

2002, the superior court sentenced him to a 15.75-year term of 

imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State 

v. Bolden, 1 CA-CR 03-0030 (Ariz. App. Dec 23, 2003) (mem. decision). The 

mandate on the appeal issued on July 22, 2004. 

¶3 Between 2004 and 2013, Bolden commenced three postconviction relief proceedings, all of which were unsuccessful. On July 11, 

2014, Bolden filed a “Writ of Coram Nobis -Writ of Error,” raising a claim 

of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in regards to his sentencing. The 

superior court properly treated the filing as a notice of post-conviction 

relief, see Rule 32.3, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and summarily dismissed it, ruling 

the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be raised in an 

untimely Rule 32 proceeding. This petition for review followed.

¶4 On review, Bolden requests that this court reverse the 

superior court’s summary dismissal of his claim for 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).

¶5 To be timely, a notice of post-conviction relief must be filed 

within ninety days of entry of judgment and sentencing or within thirty 

days after the issuance of the mandate on a direct appeal. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

32.4(a). “Any notice not timely filed may only raise claims pursuant to Rule 

32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h).” Id.; see also State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, 118, ¶

13, 203 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2009) (noting “few exceptions” to “general rule of 

preclusion” for claims in untimely or successive petitions). Claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel do not fall within Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) 

or (h) because they are “cognizable under Rule 32.1(a).” State v. Petty, 225 

Ariz. 369, 373, ¶ 11, 238 P.3d 637, 641 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

32.1(a) cmt. (noting claims of ineffectiveness of counsel and violations of 

other constitutional rights fall under this subsection). Thus, the superior 

court correctly ruled Bolden could not raise the ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim in an untimely post-conviction proceeding. 
STATE v. BOLDEN

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Furthermore, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

raised by Bolden is precluded because it could have been raised in his prior 

Rule 32 proceedings. Ariz. R. Crim. 32.2(a); see also State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 

1, 2, ¶ 4, 39 P.3d 525, 526 (2002) (“Our basic rule is that where ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims are raised, or could have been raised, in a Rule 

32 post-conviction relief proceeding, subsequent claims of ineffective 

assistance will be deemed waived and precluded.”) (emphasis omitted). 

Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion by the superior court in 

summarily dismissing the post-conviction relief proceeding.

¶7 We grant review, but deny relief.