NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

KELLY, Presiding Judge.

¶1 Albert Gaxiola 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. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Gaxiola has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here.

¶2 After a jury trial, Gaxiola was convicted of two counts each of felony murder and aggravated assault, and one count of first-degree burglary, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and armed robbery. He was sentenced to consecutive life terms for the murder counts and consecutive prison terms totaling fifty-four years on the remaining offenses. On appeal, we vacated his sentence for aggravated robbery and the restitution order entered at sentencing, but otherwise affirmed his convictions and sentences. State v. Gaxiola, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0270, 17 (memorandum decision filed Oct. 18, 2012).

¶3 Within thirty days after we issued our mandate, while his resentencing was pending,1 Gaxiola sought post-conviction relief claiming: (1) we had "affirmed [his] convictions based on clearly and completely erroneous facts" and the trial court had authority to "correct" our ruling; (2) trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to raise various evidentiary issues; and (3) appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that the trial court had improperly "interfered with the defense presenting its theory of the case." Gaxiola also raised several new claims in his reply to the state's response, specifically that appellate counsel was ineffective "for allowing the wrong facts to be considered by the Court of Appeals," a witness's identification was unreliable, and the state "improperly expanded the theory of accomplice liability" and committed prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court summarily denied relief, and this petition for review followed.

¶4 On review, Gaxiola first argues the trial court erred "when it refused to consider the due process, constitutional violation when this court considered erroneous facts" in affirming his conviction. But, although Gaxiola expends considerable effort in attempting to support his claim that we relied on incorrect facts in affirming the convictions, he cites no authority suggesting the trial court erred in concluding that such a claim is not cognizable in a Rule 32 proceeding.2 See generally Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1. Thus, we do not address this argument further. See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (failure to develop legal argument waives argument on review).

¶5 Gaxiola further claims that the trial court "did not deal" with his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective "in failing to properly review the case in order to ensure that this Court did not cite to erroneous facts." But a trial court is not required to address claims raised for the first time in a reply. See State v. Lopez, 223 Ariz. 238, ¶¶ 6-7, 221 P.3d 1052, 1054 (App. 2009). Thus, the court did not err in declining to review this claim.3

¶6 Although we grant review, we deny relief.