NOT FOR PUBLICATION

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

VÁSQUEZ, Judge.

¶1 Robert Thomas seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Thomas has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here.

¶2 Thomas pled guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to a 2.5-year prison term. He filed a notice of post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating he had reviewed the record but found no claims to raise in post-conviction proceedings. Thomas then filed a pro se petition arguing the state had relied on perjured testimony; his counsel had been ineffective in failing to challenge the indictment, adequately investigate his case, and consult with him; and there was newly discovered evidence relevant to his conviction and sentence. The trial court summarily denied relief, noting Thomas had not established a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, identified any newly discovered evidence, or demonstrated any evidence had been perjured. This petition for review followed the court's denial of Thomas's motion for reconsideration.

¶3 On review, Thomas first appears to reiterate his claim of "perjured testimony." But Thomas's guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects unrelated to the validity of his plea, including constitutional claims. See State v. Flores, 218 Ariz. 407, ¶ 6, 188 P.3d 706, 708-09 (App. 2008). He further asserts his plea agreement is "ambiguous" and his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to "detect[]" this fact. But he did not raise these arguments below and, accordingly, has waived them on review, and we do not address them further. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980) (court of appeals does not address issues raised for first time in petition for review); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (petition for review should contain "issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review"). And, to the extent Thomas claims he is actually innocent, we do not address that argument for the same reason.

¶4 Finally, Thomas appears to assert his plea was involuntary because he was not taking medication for his "mental issues" at the time he pled guilty and that he was "confused" by the plea agreement. Thomas raised this argument for the first time in his reply to the state's response to his petition. Thus, the trial court was not required to address it, and we will not address it on review. See State v. Lopez, 223 Ariz. 238, ¶¶ 6-7, 221 P.2d 1052, 1054 (App. 2009); Ramirez, 126 Ariz. at 468, 616 P.2d at 928.

¶5 For the reasons stated, although we grant review, we deny relief.