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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

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; RELI EF 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 pos t

- 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 convicte d 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 20 13, Bolden commenced three post

conviction relief proceedings, a ll of which were unsuccessful. O n July 11, 2014, Bolden filed a “Writ of Coram Nobis

- Writ of Error,” raising a cl aim 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 ineffectiv e assistance of counsel coul d not be raised in an untimely R ule 32 proceeding. This petition for review followed.

¶4 On review, B olden requests that this court reverse the superior court’s summary dismissal of his claim for relief. We review the summary dis missal 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 o f judgment and sentencin g 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 thi s 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 preclud ed 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 c ould 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.