STATE v. ALTAMIMI

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, v. ALI ALTAMIMI, Petitioner. DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/29/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0629-PR DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Petition for Review from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2001-010665 The Honorable Harriett E. Chavez, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Ali Altamimi Pro Se San Luis PER CURIAM ¶1 A jury convicted petitioner degree murder and theft in 2001. Ali Altamimi of first The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for life without a possibility of release for 25 years for imprisonment murder for and theft. a concurrent We affirmed term his of 3.5 years' convictions and sentences on direct appeal in State v. Altamimi, 1 CA-CR 02-0106 (Ariz. App. June 10, 2003). Altamimi now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his latest successive petition for postconviction petition relief. for We review post-conviction the relief summary for dismissal abuse of of a discretion. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). ¶2 In his petition for review, Altamimi presents claims of ineffective assistance of counsel who represented him in his first post-conviction numerous claims of relief proceeding ineffective in 2003, assistance employed by the Department of Corrections. of as a well as paralegal Altamimi argues the recent United States Supreme Court case of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), constitutes a significant change in the law that allows him to raise untimely claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶3 We deny relief. Altamimi could have raised claims in a prior post-conviction relief proceeding. a defendant relief could proceeding have is raised in precluded. an earlier Ariz. R. these Any claim post-conviction Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply, and Martinez does not provide otherwise. Martinez held, "where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural 2 default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective." 1320. in 132 S. Ct. at This simply means Altamimi can seek habeas corpus relief federal court based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel if he can meet either of the prerequisites identified in Martinez. Martinez does not require a state court to consider all untimely claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in post-conviction proceedings. Finally, ineffective assistance of a paralegal is not a cognizable claim under Rule 32. ¶4 While the petition for review presents other issues, Altamimi did not raise those issues in the petition for postconviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). ¶5 We grant review and deny relief. /s/ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge /s/ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.