Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0071-PR
05-16-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DANIEL MANUEL MORALES, Petitioner.
Daniel Manuel Morales, Goodyear In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2008141901001DT
The Honorable Sally Schneider Duncan, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Daniel Manuel Morales, Goodyear
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
KELLY, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Daniel Morales petitions this court for review of the trial court's order denying his motion seeking permission to initiate an untimely post-conviction relief proceeding pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Morales has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here.
¶2 In 2009, Morales pled guilty to three counts of attempted child molestation and the trial court sentenced him to a six-year prison term to be followed by concurrent terms of lifetime probation. Morales first sought post-conviction relief in December 2011, asserting in his petition that his trial counsel had been ineffective and that his sentence was illegal. The trial court summarily dismissed the proceeding in January 2012. In June 2012, Morales filed a motion for rehearing and a motion seeking leave to file an untimely petition for review. In December 2012, Morales filed a motion seeking "Permission to File Delayed/Untimely Post-Conviction Relief," stating he would "make his claims clear in his petition by current case law, and criminal procedure, as to leave no doubt of his claims." The trial court denied those pending motions, noting there was "no legal basis for relief." This petition for review followed.
¶3 On review, Morales asks us to "grant" his motion seeking leave to initiate an untimely post-conviction proceeding, claiming his terms of lifetime probation are unconstitutional because they "violate[] Sep[a]ration of Powers." But Morales has identified no error in the trial court's determination that there was no legal
basis to grant his motion below. Indeed, nothing in Rule 32 permits—or requires—a defendant to seek permission to file an untimely notice of post-conviction relief. Instead, in an untimely proceeding, a defendant is limited to claims pursuant to Rules 32.1(d) through (h), Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a), and must comply with Rule 32.2(b).
¶4 Although we grant review, we deny relief.