With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or that asserts it but fails to state any principle of law or any fact that would entitle the petitioner to the equitable tolling of the applicable limitations provision, may be summarily dismissed without a hearing. Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim. P.” (Emphasis added; footnote omitted.) Based on the plain language of Ward, the petitioner must establish entitlement to the remedy of equitable tolling in her petition. In this case, the petition was time-barred on its face, and the appellant did not assert equitable tolling in the petition. Therefore, the circuit court could have properly summarily denied the petition pursuant to Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., because it was time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment. See Sumlin v. State, 710 So.2d 941 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. McMILLAN, WISE, and WELCH, JJ.,

A: holding that we will affirm a circuit courts denial of a rule 32petition if it is correct for any reason
B: recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record
C: recognizing ability to affirm for any reason that finds support in record
D: holding that we may affirm a district court if its holding was right for any reason
A.