STATE OF ARIZONA v. CARLOS ROBLES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CARLOS ROBLES, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0397-PR Filed March 14, 2017 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20050205 The Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Carlos Robles, San Luis In Propria Persona STATE v. ROBLES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Judge: ¶1 Carlos Robles seeks review of the trial court’s ruling summarily dismissing his untimely and successive notice of postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly abused its discretion. State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7, 353 P.3d 847, 848 (2015). Robles has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Robles was found guilty of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to a natural life prison term for murder, to be followed by a 10.5year prison term for attempted murder. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Robles, No. 2 CA-CR 2006-0080 (Ariz. App. Oct. 11, 2007) (mem. decision). Robles then sought postconviction relief, which the trial court denied, and this court denied relief on review. State v. Robles, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0046-PR (Ariz. App. May 14, 2010) (mem. decision). ¶3 In October 2016, Robles filed a notice of post-conviction relief asserting McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015), constituted a significant change in the law pursuant to Rule 32.1(g). He argued, pursuant to McKinney, that he was entitled to be resentenced because the court had not considered at sentencing evidence concerning his mental health history and “dysfunctional” family background. The trial court summarily dismissed Robles’s notice, stating inter alia that McKinney, which addressed “the Arizona Supreme Court’s refusal, as a matter of law, to consider nonstatutory mitigating factors” in a capital case, had no application to Robles because the state did not seek the death penalty and that “there [was] no indication” the sentencing court had declined, “as a matter of law,” 2 STATE v. ROBLES Decision of the Court to consider nonstatutory mitigating factors. This petition for review followed. ¶4 On review, Robles repeats his claim that McKinney is a significant change in the law applicable to his case. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g), 32.4(a). But the Ninth Circuit in McKinney addressed no issue relevant to this case. Instead, the court determined the so-called “causal nexus text” for mitigation evidence in capital cases was “contrary to clearly established federal law.” McKinney, 813 F.3d at 815-16, 819. As the trial court correctly pointed out, however, Robles did not face the death penalty. Nor has Robles identified anything suggesting the court refused to consider mitigating evidence because the evidence lacked a causal connection to his offenses. Thus, the trial court did not err in summarily dismissing Robles’s notice. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) (requiring summary dismissal of notice lacking “meritorious reasons . . . substantiating the claim”). ¶5 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.
