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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
JOSHUA MARTIN MELECIO, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0802 PRPC
FILED 11-1-2016
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2011-134412-001
CR2011-134851-001
The Honorable Roger E. Brodman, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APPEARANCES
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Joshua Martin Melecio, Buckeye
Petitioner Pro Se
STATE v. MELECIO
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court in which
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
O R O Z C O, Judge:
¶1 Joshua Martin Melecio petitions for review of the summary
dismissal of his second notice of post-conviction relief. We have considered
the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny
relief.
¶2 Melecio pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery and was
sentenced in accordance with the plea agreements to concurrent fifteen-
year prison terms. After having his first post-conviction relief proceeding
dismissed in 2012, Melecio filed an untimely and successive notice of post-
conviction relief in 2014 indicating intent to raise claims of newly
discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief
counsel. Finding that Melecio failed to state a claim for which relief could
be granted, the superior court summarily dismissed the notice.
¶3 We review the summary dismissal of a post-conviction relief
proceeding for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17
(2006). Furthermore, we may affirm the superior court’s ruling “on any
basis supported by the record.” State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 199 (1987).
¶4 The superior court properly dismissed Melecio’s notice of
post-conviction relief. Because the notice was untimely, Melecio was
precluded from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 32.4(a); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a) cmt. (noting claims of
ineffectiveness of counsel fall under Rule 32.1(a)). And while a claim of
newly discovered evidence is one that can be raised in an untimely or
successive post-conviction relief proceeding, Melecio failed to make the
requisite showing in his notice “substantiating the claim and indicating
why the claim was not stated in the previous petition or in a timely manner”
to avoid summary dismissal. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b).
2
STATE v. MELECIO
Decision of the Court
¶5 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
3