Cited by

P. 32.2(b) (successive notice of post-conviction relief may only assert claims that fall within Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g), or (h), and must explain why the claim was not stated in the previous petition or in a timely manner); see, ¶ 23 (App. 1999) (“[A Rule 32] petitioner 2 STATE v. HOLMES Decision of the Court must offer some demonstration that the attorney’s representation fell below that of the prevailing objective standards .

A notice of post-conviction relief may be summarily dismissed as untimely if it is not filed within 90 days of the entry of judgment, ¶ 7 (App. 1999), and Manganiello’s challenge to his guilty plea was untimely by almost eight years.

§ 41-1604.09(I) ; see also State v. Rosario , , ¶ 26

¶ 23 (App. 1999) (petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must offer more than "mere speculation").

¶9 The burden is on the petitioner seeking post-conviction relief to show ineffective assistance of counsel, and “the showing must be that of a provable reality, not mere speculation.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999).

¶ 23 (App. 1999) (noting that a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be based on something more than “mere speculation”).

¶ 23 (App. 1999); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

[and] some evidence of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the [proceeding] would have been different.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999) (citations omitted).

¶9 Finally, Salem has the burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel, and “the showing must be that of a provable reality, not mere speculation.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999).

The burden is on a petitioner seeking post-conviction relief to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, which must be based on “provable reality, not mere speculation.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999).

(to state colorable claim of ineffective assistance, petitioner must present more than “mere speculation” of prejudice).

P. 32.4(a); ¶ 7 (App. 1999).

This showing must not be “mere speculation.” ¶ 23