STATE OF ARIZONA v. ROBERT C. GAMEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ROBERT CARRASCO GAMEZ, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0324-PR Filed January 26, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pima County No. CR20020991 The Honorable Stephen C. Villarreal, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Robert C. Gamez, Buckeye In Propria Persona STATE v. GAMEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Miller concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Robert Gamez seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily dismissing his untimely and successive notice of postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court clearly abused its discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Gamez has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Gamez was convicted of two counts each of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling forty-six years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Gamez, No. 2 CA-CR 2003-0201 (memorandum decision filed Feb. 28, 2006). Before this proceeding, Gamez has unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief on at least three occasions. See State v. Gamez, No. 2 CA-CR 20130073-PR (memorandum decision filed Sept. 16, 2013) (providing history); see also State v. Gamez, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0308-PR (memorandum decision filed Jan. 27, 2012). ¶3 In July 2015, Gamez filed a notice of post-conviction relief claiming, he was actually innocent because there was “significant impeachment evidence” not presented to the jury due to the state’s “willful[] conceal[ment].” The trial court summarily dismissed that notice, observing Gamez had not sufficiently explained, as required by Rule 32.2(b), why he had not raised the claim in a prior proceeding despite having previously raised arguments based on the state’s alleged concealment of exculpatory evidence. Gamez then filed a motion for reconsideration and a 2 STATE v. GAMEZ Decision of the Court motion requesting discovery, both of which the court denied. This petition for review followed. ¶4 On review, Gamez asserts he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. His argument, however, appears to center on the trial court’s ruling in one of his previous proceedings. He asserts the court failed to address his argument that the state had withheld exculpatory evidence. But any error in the court’s determination in a previous proceeding cannot be challenged by filing a new postconviction notice. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1, 32.9(c). And Gamez does not address the court’s determination that he failed to adequately explain why he did not raise his claim of actual innocence in an earlier proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). ¶5 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
