STATE v. GIBLER
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. KENNETH CURTIS GIBLER, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 19-0066 PRPC FILED 9-10-2019 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2013-416860-001 The Honorable Michael W Kemp, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Andrea L Kever Counsel for Respondent Kenneth Curtis Gibler, Kingman Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined. STATE v. GIBLER Decision of the Court M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 Kenneth Gibler petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed according to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 Gibler pled guilty to three charges of attempted molestation of a child. On October 3, 2014, the superior court entered judgment and sentenced Gibler to a 12-year prison term to be followed by concurrent terms of lifetime probation. ¶3 Gibler filed an untimely notice and petition for postconviction relief (“Notice”) on December 11, 2018. See Ariz. R. Crim P. 32.4(a)(2)(C) (“In a Rule 32 of-right proceeding, a defendant must file the notice no later than 90 days after the entry of judgment and sentence.”). Without providing supporting argument, Gibler sought a reduced sentence based on summary assertions that his constitutional rights were violated, including his Sixth Amendment right to competent representation by counsel. Gibler also claimed his delay in filing the notice was not his fault because he had instructed his attorney to file “a timely notice of appeal[.]” ¶4 The superior court summarily dismissed the Notice, and this timely petition for review followed. “We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 393 ¶ 4 (App. 2007). The petitioner bears the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion. State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶5 Gibler does not adequately explain why he commenced the Rule 32 proceedings almost four years after the Notice was due. His assertion that he “had no clue what a Rule 32 entailed and the reason for it” is insufficient because he concedes he received written notice of his rights of review at sentencing. That notice expressly states: “If you want a full copy of the rules governing appeals and post-conviction relief, the clerk of the court in the county where you were convicted will send you one upon request.” Gibler does not claim he attempted to obtain a copy of Rule 32 from the court clerk. ¶6 Gibler fails to meet his burden of establishing the superior court abused its discretion. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) (“If the notice does not . . . provide reasons why defendant did not raise the claim . . . in a timely manner, the court may summarily dismiss the notice.”); A.R.S. § 13-4234(G) 2 STATE v. GIBLER Decision of the Court (“The time limits [in Rule 32] are jurisdictional, and an untimely filed notice or petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.”). ¶7 Therefore, although we grant review, we deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 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.
