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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

KELLY, Judge.

¶1 In February 2012, Steven Bruni filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Pinal County in which he maintained he was being illegally detained in the Arizona Department of Corrections because he had been sentenced pursuant to a statute that was not in force in 1979, when he committed his multiple offenses of kidnapping, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and aggravated assault.1 The Pinal County Superior Court denied his request for habeas relief and determined that "[d]espite Bruni's assertions to the contrary, the issues raised by Bruni are sentencing issues, not jurisdictional issues, subject to review in post conviction proceedings before the trial court, not in separate habeas corpus proceedings." The court then transferred the matter to the Pima County Superior Court, in accordance with Rule 32.3, Ariz. R. Crim. P. That rule provides,

If a defendant applies for a writ of habeas corpus in a trial court having jurisdiction of his or her person raising any claim attacking the validity of his or her conviction or sentence, that court shall under this rule transfer the cause to the court where the defendant was convicted or sentenced and the latter court shall treat it as a petition for relief under this rule and the procedures of this rule shall govern.

Id.

¶2 In addressing Bruni's claims in the context of Rule 32, the trial court noted he had raised the same claims in his most recent post-conviction relief proceeding, which the court had dismissed in May 2010 after finding his claims untimely and precluded.2 The court then dismissed Bruni's petition, construed pursuant to Rule 32.3 as a Rule 32 petition for post-conviction relief, concluding, "These claims remain untimely and precluded under Rule 32." This petition for review followed.

¶3 On review, Bruni reasserts his claims and appears to argue the trial court abused its discretion in "refus[ing] to correct an illegal sentence" and in finding his claims precluded, "thereby u[]surping the United States Constitution and [the] Arizona Constitution." We review a court's summary denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). We find none here.

¶4 As we stated in denying relief on the same claim in Bruni's 2010 petition for review, "claims of an illegal sentence are not exempt from the preclusive effect of Rule 32.2(b)." State v. Bruni, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0184-PR, ¶ 4 (memorandum decision filed Oct. 27, 2010); see State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, ¶¶ 6-7, 23, 203 P.3d 1175, 1177, 1180 (2009) (illegal sentence claim precluded by waiver); State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 42, 166 P.3d 945, 958 (App. 2007) (claim of fundamental error not excepted from preclusion). The trial court correctly dismissed Bruni's petition for relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6(c) (court shall summarily dismiss petition raising only precluded claims).3

¶5 Accordingly, we grant review, but relief is denied.

GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge and PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge, concurring.