Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0089-PR
07-06-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Juan Antonio Gamez, Petitioner.
Juan Antonio Gamez, Buckeye In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR058231001 The Honorable Brenden J. Griffin, Judge
Juan Antonio Gamez, Buckeye In Propria Persona
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Sklar and Judge O'Neil concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, VICE CHIEF JUDGE:
¶ 1 In what appears to be his sixth post-conviction proceeding, Juan Gamez seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his notice of and petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). We find no such abuse here.
¶ 2 After a jury trial in 1998, Gamez was convicted of first-degree murder and was given a "life sentence with no release on any basis until completion of 25 calendar years." In 1999, we affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Gamez, No. 2 CA-CR 98-0514 (Ariz. App. Dec. 30, 1999) (mem. decision). Since his conviction, Gamez has sought and been denied post-conviction relief on multiple occasions, and this court granted review but denied relief from the trial court's decisions in two of those proceedings. State v. Gamez, No. 2 CA-CR 01-0365-PR (Ariz. App. Jan. 31, 2002) (mem. decision); State v. Gamez, No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0401-PR (Ariz. App. Jan. 22, 2014) (mem. decision).
When Gamez was sentenced, a defendant convicted of first-degree murder could be sentenced to prison for natural life or for life without the possibility of release "on any basis until the completion of the service of twenty-five calendar years." See 1993 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 153, § 1.
¶ 3 In September 2022, Gamez again sought post-conviction relief, asserting he was entitled to immediate release because his twenty-five "calendar[-]year" sentence had expired. The trial court appointed counsel, who filed a notice stating he had found no "legitimate basis for relief under Rule 32." The court permitted Gamez to file a pro se petition, and in December 2022, he filed a notice of post-conviction relief, which the court treated as a petition. Asserting he was entitled to relief under Rule 32.1(d), Gamez argued he continued to be held in custody after the expiration of his sentence, which he maintained was a flat twenty-five years. He added that the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADCRR) incorrectly believed he had been sentenced "as doing 25 years to life."
The trial court treated Gamez's pleading, entitled "Motion: Amenitly [sic] Release from the Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry," as a successive notice of post-conviction relief.
Gamez also requested that a new attorney be appointed to represent him.
¶ 4 The trial court dismissed Gamez's petition in March 2023. In its ruling, it correctly noted that Gamez had previously raised this same argument, namely, that he was being held after his twenty-five-year sentence had expired. Notably, the court pointed out that Gamez had received a life sentence without the possibility of release for twenty-five years, noting that he had "been told this repeatedly through multiple sources and was provided documentation of the imposed life-sentence." The court also determined that Gamez's "claim is not only without merit for the many reasons stated in the State's Response but is precluded as having previously been decided." (Footnote omitted.) In its response, the state pointed out, in part, that Gamez's sentence was unambiguous, arguing that he had "received a sentence of life with no possibility of release until he serves 25 years, and he has not been granted commutation of his sentence." See A.R.S. § 31-402(C)(2), (4) (allowing board of executive clemency to recommend commutation); see also McDonald v. Thomas, 202 Ariz. 35, ¶ 12 (2002) (governor's ultimate decision to approve or reject commutation). This petition for review followed.
And, as the state also correctly noted, Gamez had previously acknowledged that he had received a sentence of twenty-five years to life.
¶ 5 On review, Gamez argues that because "there are no orders of 25 years to life or life in prison" in his case, he is being held in custody after his sentence expired, which he asserts occurred on August 24, 2022. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(d). He also requests that an attorney be appointed to present "any other issues" related to his case. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying his petition. First, Gamez has not meaningfully addressed the court's ruling denying his petition or explained why he is entitled to relief on review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2)(D) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition").
¶ 6 Second, as the trial court correctly noted, Gamez has previously raised this claim, and is thus precluded from doing so again. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2), (b). Claims under Rule 32.1(d) are subject to preclusion if they were "finally adjudicated on the merits in an appeal or in any previous post-conviction proceeding." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2), (b). And, although the court also determined that Gamez's claim fails on the merits for the "many reasons" stated by the state in its response to his petition, because we conclude the court properly found his claim precluded, we decline to further address that portion of the court's ruling. Cf. State v. Oakley, 180 Ariz. 34, 36 (App. 1994) (appellate court "will affirm the trial court when it reaches the correct result even though it does so for the wrong reasons").
¶ 7 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.