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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANDREW MILO NOBLE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0459 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 0000-146404

The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Andrew Milo Noble, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the court, in 

which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.
STATE v. NOBLE

Decision of the Court

2

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Andrew Milo Noble petitions this court for review from the 

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

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

¶2 A jury convicted Noble of three counts of child molestation 

and one count of kidnapping. He was sentenced to three concurrent 

sentences of 25 years to life on the child molestation convictions, and a 

consecutive sentence of 25 years to life on the kidnapping conviction. The 

Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences in 1987. 

State v. Noble, 152 Ariz. 284 (1987). In 2016, Noble filed a successive petition 

for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel and 

that he was entitled to review of his sentence under Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296 (2004). The superior court summarily dismissed his petition.

¶3 On review, Noble argues his trial counsel was ineffective 

when he "refused" to allow Noble to testify; Noble further contends his trial 

counsel told him that he should not testify because the jury would 

disbelieve him because he is Black. His claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel is precluded as untimely. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), 32.4(a); see 

also State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 4 (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.)). Although Noble alleges he first learned of this issue in 2016, he 

has known since his trial what his lawyer told him at that time. Further, the 

record of his trial indicates that although he did not testify on the 

substantive charges, he did testify (against advice of counsel) at the trial on 

his prior convictions.

¶4 Noble also argues that his consecutive 25-years-to-life 

sentences are unconstitutional, but that claim is precluded under Arizona 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a) because it could have been raised on 

appeal.

¶5 To the extent that we could construe Noble's petition for 

review to raise a claim under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) 

(significant change in the law), that claim is also without merit (and was 

previously denied in a different Rule 32 proceeding). Noble was sentenced 

in 1987. Blakely announced a new constitutionally based rule that has no 

retroactive application. State v. Febles, 210 Ariz. 589, 592, ¶ 7 (App. 2005). 
STATE v. NOBLE

Decision of the Court

3

Because Noble's conviction was final before Blakely was decided in 2004, 

Blakely has no application to Noble. See id.

¶6 Finally, in his petition for review Noble raises other

allegations concerning the manner in which the Maricopa County superior 

court processes petitions for post-conviction relief that he did not present 

to the superior court. We will not address these allegations. A party may 

not supplement the record with matters not first considered by the superior

court. See State v. Martinez, 134 Ariz. 119, 120 (App. 1982) ("Appellate courts 

will review only those matters which appear in the records of the trial 

court.").

¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.