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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

PETE RUBEN VASQUEZ, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0483 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 1994-007713

The Honorable Christine E. Mulleneaux, judge pro tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Pete Ruben Vasquez, Florence

Petitioner Pro Se

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding 

Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
STATE v. VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

K E S S L E R, Judge:

¶1 Pete Ruben Vasquez aka Pete Ruben Huerta petitions this 

Court for review of the summary dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure

(“Rule”) 32.1. We have considered the petition for review and, for the 

reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 In 1995, Vasquez pled guilty in Maricopa County Superior 

Court cause number CR94-07713 to two counts of attempted sexual conduct 

with a minor in the second degree. On August 21, 1995, the superior court 

sentenced Vasquez in accordance with the plea agreement to a ten-year 

term of imprisonment followed by a term of lifetime probation. 

¶3 In May 2010, while Vasquez was on probation following his 

release from prison, the State petitioned to revoke his probation. Vasquez 

admitted to the violation, and on November 1, 2010, the superior court 

revoked his probation and sentenced him to a ten-year term of 

imprisonment. 

¶4 Vasquez filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief of right 

and the superior court appointed counsel to represent him. Appointed 

counsel filed a notice of completion of post-conviction review, stating he 

could find no claims for relief to raise on Vasquez’s behalf. The proceedings 

were dismissed on November 3, 2011, after Vasquez was given the

opportunity to file a pro se petition and failed to do so. 

¶5 On February 20, 2014, Vasquez filed a notice and petition for 

post-conviction relief alleging claims of illegal sentence and ineffective 

assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The superior court summarily 

dismissed the proceedings, finding the notice and petition to be untimely 

and successive and the claims to be precluded. This petition for review 

followed. 

¶6 On review, Vasquez contends the superior court erred in

denying relief on his claims of illegal sentence and ineffective assistance of 

counsel. We review the summary dismissal of a post-conviction relief 

proceeding for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 

(2006). 

¶7 Because Vasquez filed his second notice and petition for postconviction relief more than ninety days after the order of dismissal of his 

post-conviction proceeding of right, the notice and petition were untimely. 

See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). “Any notice not timely filed may only raise 
STATE v. VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

claims pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h).” Id.; see also State v. Shrum, 

220 Ariz. 115, 118, ¶ 13 (2009) (noting "few exceptions" to "general rule of 

preclusion" for claims in untimely or successive petitions). 

¶8 Claims of illegal sentence do not fall within Rule 32.1(d), (e), 

(f), (g) or (h) because they are encompassed within Rule 32.1(c). State v. 

Cazares, 205 Ariz. 425, 426, ¶ 4 (App. 2003). Similarly, 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 (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 did not err in 

ruling that Vasquez was precluded from raising the illegal sentence and 

ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the untimely post-conviction 

proceeding. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion by the superior 

court in summarily dismissing the notice and petition. 

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.