ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the superior court in Maricopa county
No. CR1998013810
The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Richard Farrall, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Vásquez concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Richard Farrall seeks review of the trial court's summary dismissal of his untimely, successive notice of post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We grant review, but we deny relief.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Farrall was convicted in 1999 of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, and attempted sexual conduct with a minor over the age of fifteen. The trial court sentenced him to an aggravated, enhanced, twenty-five-year term of imprisonment on the first count, to be followed by lifetime probation on the second count.
¶3 In his most recent untimely Rule 32 filings, Farrall claimed his aggravated sentence was illegal because it was based only on "catch-all" sentencing factors, in violation of the rule announced in State v. Schmidt, 220 Ariz. 563, 208 P.3d 214 (2009). He maintained Schmidt was a significant change in the law entitling him to relief pursuant to Rule 32.1(g). The trial court construed his filings as a notice of post-conviction relief and dismissed it, stating, inter alia, that Farrell had "supplie[d] no basis to apply Schmidt retroactively to the sentence in his case, which has been final for more than a decade." In this petition for review, Farrall essentially repeats the arguments he raised below.
¶4 We review a summary denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006), and we find none here. The trial court clearly identified Farrall's claims and resolved them correctly based on a thorough, well-reasoned analysis. We need not repeat that analysis
here; instead, we adopt it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). Accordingly, we grant review, but we deny relief.