STATE v. MURILLO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ROBERT MURILLO, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 16-0742 PRPC FILED 11-21-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2014-102788-001 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Robert Murillo, Florence Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. STATE v. MURILLO Decision of the Court J O N E S, Judge: ¶1 Robert Murillo petitions this Court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. We have considered the petition and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief. ¶2 Murillo pleaded guilty to one count each of attempted child prostitution and sexual conduct with a minor arising out of events occurring in August 2013. The plea agreement contained a stipulated sentence to the presumptive term of 3.5 years’ imprisonment for attempted prostitution and lifetime probation for sexual conduct with a minor. In October 2014, Murillo was sentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. ¶3 In September 2016, Murillo filed a notice and petition for postconviction relief alleging relief was warranted based upon ineffective assistance of counsel and an illegal sentence. The superior court dismissed both the notice and the petition as untimely. Murillo timely petitioned this Court for review. ¶4 We will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent an abuse of discretion or error of law. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶5 Where a defendant pleads guilty to an offense, postconviction relief proceedings “must be filed within ninety days after the entry of judgment and sentence.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). Murillo’s petition was not filed until almost two years after he was sentenced for the offenses and is untimely. He has not shown that any exception applies. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). ¶6 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief. 2
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.
