State v. Lockwood, 1 CA-CR 16-0417-PRPC

Carl Ray Lockwood pled guilty to sexual conduct with a minor and attempted sexual conduct with a minor (separate dates).
Superior court sentenced Lockwood to the presumptive 20-year term for sexual conduct with a minor and lifetime probation, consecutive, for the attempted offense.
Lockwood filed multiple prior Rule 32 post-conviction petitions challenging sentence legality and probation; those petitions were denied.
In Feb. 2016 Lockwood filed a "Motion for Clarification of Sentence" (asked not to be treated as a Rule 32 petition) asserting illegal enhancement under A.R.S. §13-604.01, double jeopardy under §13-116 (arguing concurrent terms required), and that the error was fundamental.
The superior court treated the filing as a Rule 32 petition, denied it as untimely and precluded under Rules 32.2/32.4, and Lockwood sought appellate review.
The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief, holding the claims were precluded and the sentences were lawful under the statutes in effect at the time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lockwood's challenge to sentence legality was timely or precluded	Lockwood: sentence was illegally enhanced under A.R.S. §13-604.01 and therefore reviewable as fundamental error	State: claims were untimely and could/should have been raised earlier; precluded by Rule 32.2/32.4	Denied — claims are untimely and precluded
Whether lifetime probation must run concurrently with prison term (double jeopardy)	Lockwood: probation and prison should run concurrently; consecutive term violates double jeopardy under §13-116	State: charges on different dates so double jeopardy not implicated; statutes authorized consecutive probation	Denied — consecutive lifetime probation permissible; no double jeopardy
Whether sentence was unlawfully enhanced under §13-604.01	Lockwood: asserted improper enhancement altered authorized sentence	State: sentence imposed pursuant to §13-604.01(C) (1999) was lawful and required no priors for the term imposed	Denied — sentencing conformed to statutory law in effect
Whether alleged error qualifies as exception to preclusion because it is "fundamental"	Lockwood: error was fundamental and so should not be precluded	State: fundamental error is not a categorical exception to Rule 32 preclusion	Denied — fundamental error does not exempt claim from preclusion

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (App. 2012) (standard for appellate review of Rule 32 rulings)
State v. Lopez, 234 Ariz. 513 (App. 2014) (timeliness rules for post-conviction relief are jurisdictional)
State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115 (2009) (post-conviction claims must be timely presented)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (fundamental error is not an implicit exception to Rule 32.2 preclusion)
Martin v. Martin, 182 Ariz. 11 (App. 1994) (civil child-support case cited by petitioner but inapplicable)