Case Information
*1 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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
A RIZONA C OURT OF A PPEALS
D IVISION O NE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent , v.
BRAULIO TREJO-MARTIN, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 14-0712 PRPC Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2010-134281-001
The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Braulio Trejo-Martin, Florence
Petitioner Pro Se
STATE v. TREJO-MARTIN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
M c M U R D I E , Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Braulio Trejo-Martin petitions this court for review of the summary dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. Trejo-Martin pled guilty to molestation of a child and two counts of attempted molestation of a child in 2011. Trejo-Martin argues his trial counsel and his first post-conviction relief counsel were ineffective. He further argues the superior court erred when it imposed an aggravated term of imprisonment for the count of molestation of a child.
¶2 We deny relief. Trejo-Martin could have raised the sentencing issues as well as the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his first post-conviction relief proceeding. He could have raised the claims of ineffective assistance of his first post-conviction counsel in a timely second petition for post-conviction relief in 2012. Any claim a defendant could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. ¶3 We grant review but deny relief.
2