NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 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.

MARK ANTHONY MORRIS, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0239 PRPC 

 

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2003-038528-001, CR2006-166112-001 

 CR2008-111440-001, CR2009-006265-001 

The Honorable Maria del Mar Verdin, Judge 

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED 

COUNSEL 

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix 

By Diane Meloche 

Counsel for Respondent

Mark Anthony Morris, Tucson 

Petitioner
STATE v. MORRIS 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Maurice Portley joined. 

O R O Z C O, Presiding Judge: 

¶1 Mark Anthony Morris petitions this court for review from the 

dismissal of his notice of post-conviction relief. We have considered the 

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

¶2 Morris pled guilty to five felonies in two separate cases. A 

jury convicted Morris of two more felonies in two other cases consolidated 

for trial. We affirmed those convictions and sentences on direct appeal. 

State v. Morris, 1 CA-CR 10-0666; 1 CA-CR 10-0669 (consolidated) (Ariz. 

App. Aug. 18, 2011) (mem. decision). In the notice of post-conviction relief 

that is the subject of this petition, Morris identified all four cases as being at 

issue, but he ultimately addressed only one of the four cases, CR 2009-

006265-001. Therefore, we confine our review to that case only. 

¶3 In CR 2009-006265-001, Morris pled guilty to conspiracy to 

commit money laundering, fraudulent schemes and artifices, theft and 

assisting a criminal street gang. The trial court sentenced Morris to thirteen 

and one-half years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit money 

laundering and a concurrent term of seven years’ imprisonment for theft. 

The court placed Morris on an aggregate term of seven years’ probation for 

the remaining counts. Morris now seeks review of the summary dismissal 

of his latest successive notice of post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶4 Morris argues that his conviction for conspiracy to commit 

money laundering should have been for a class 3 felony rather than a class 

2 felony. He further argues his trial counsel was ineffective when counsel 

failed to raise this issue at or before sentencing. We deny relief. Morris 

could have raised these issues in a prior post-conviction relief proceeding. 

Any claim a defendant raised or could have raised in an earlier postconviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Our 

supreme court has made it clear the rule of preclusion includes untimely 

claims regarding the legality of a sentence. State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, 

117-120, ¶¶ 3-23, 203 P.3d 1175, 1177-1180 (2009). 
STATE v. MORRIS 

Decision of the Court 

3 

¶5 Morris also argues the trial court erred when it denied his 

motion to extend the time to file a petition for review in a previous postconviction relief proceeding in CR 2009-006265-001.1 The trial court 

summarily dismissed the prior proceeding in October of 2012 and Morris 

did not file his motion to extend until five months later. We deny relief on 

this issue as well. The denial of a motion to extend time to file a petition for 

review is not a cognizable claim under Rule 32. Further, Morris claimed he 

failed to file a timely petition because he had only recently learned he 

should have filed a petition for review and he was otherwise unfamiliar 

with the rules. This was not sufficient to require the trial court to grant a 

motion to extend. 

¶6 While the petition for review presents additional issues, 

Morris did not raise those issues in the petition for post-conviction relief he 

filed in the trial court. 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). 

¶7 We grant review and deny relief. 

 

1 That motion also sought to revive the dismissed proceedings and 

present wholly new issues and arguments.