In State v. Diaz, 236 Ariz. 361, 340 P.3d 1069 (2014), the defendant's first and second notices of post-conviction relief were dismissed after different appointed counsel in both proceedings failed to file a petition despite having been granted several extensions to do so. 236 Ariz. 361,3-4, 340 P.3d at 1070. The trial court found the IAC claim Diaz raised in his third post-conviction proceeding had been waived and was precluded, based on the clear language of the rule and existing case law. The Court agreed on review. Id.5. The Arizona Supreme Court accepted Diaz's petition for review "to decide an important issue of law concerning waiver in Rule 32 proceedings." Id.6. The court noted that Diaz's first Rule 32 notice was filed timely. Id.11. It also acknowledged that a defendant is precluded from raising a claim waived by his failure to raise it in a previous post-conviction proceeding. Id.1. But, the court concluded, "Under the unusual facts of this case, Daniel Diaz did not waive his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim when, through no fault of Diaz's, his counsel failed to file petitions in two prior post-conviction relief proceedings." Id. The supreme court reasoned that its "holding in this peculiar scenario does not frustrate Rule 32's preclusion provisions, which . . . 'require a defendant to raise all known claims for relief in a single petition.'" Id.12, quoting Petty, 225 Ariz. 369,11, 238 P.3d at 641. The purpose of preclusion, the court observed, is to "'prevent endless or nearly endless reviews of the same case in the same trial court.'" Id., quoting Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446,11, 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002). The court concluded, "Permitting Diaz to file his first petition to assert an IAC claim under the circumstances here will not result in repeated review of the IAC claim; it would result in its first review." Id.