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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

CARDELL GAUFF, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0574 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2001-006778

The Honorable Roland J. Steinle, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Cardell Gauff, Florence

Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
STATE v. GAUFF

Decision of the Court

2

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Cardell Gauff seeks review of the superior court’s 

order summarily dismissing what appears to be his fifth petition for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1

(2015)1. Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not 

disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. See

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). Finding 

no such error, this court grants review but denies relief.

¶2 Gauff’s convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault

were affirmed on direct appeal nearly 13 years ago. See State v. Gauff, 1 CACR 92-1029 (Ariz. App. Sept. 10, 2002) (mem. dec.).2 His most recent notice 

and petition for post-conviction relief, filed July 8, 2013, alleges ineffective 

assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, due process violations and

illegal sentence. The superior court found Gauff’s claims untimely and 

successive and ruled that Gauff failed to state a claim on which relief can be 

granted in an untimely or successive petition.

¶3 Gauff was sentenced on November 7, 2001 and the mandate 

issued on his direct appeal on October 22, 2002. Thus, the July 8, 2013 notice 

and petition for post-conviction relief are untimely and successive. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) (setting deadlines for filing notice of post-conviction 

relief). A defendant who commences an untimely or successive Rule 32 

post-conviction proceeding is limited to raising claims pursuant to Rule 

32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h). See id. Gauff’s claims for relief, however, are not 

proper claims that may be raised in an untimely or successive postconviction relief proceeding. Accordingly, the superior court did not err in 

summarily dismissing the post-conviction proceeding because Gauff failed 

to state a claim for which relief could be granted under Rule 32. See State v. 

Manning, 143 Ariz. 139, 141, 692 P.2d 318, 320 (App. 1984).

 

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

2 This court previously denied review of the superior court’s summary 

dismissals of two subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief. State v. 

Gauff, 1 CA-CR 04-0787 PRPC (Ariz. App. Aug. 10, 2005) (dec. order); State 

v. Gauff, 1 CA-CR 07-0220 PRPC (Ariz. App. Nov. 30, 2007) (dec. order). The 

superior court also summarily denied Gauff’s June 16, 2008 notice of postconviction relief and March 25, 2009 notice of and petition for postconviction relief. Gauff did not seek review by this court of those rulings. 
STATE v. GAUFF

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 For these reasons, this court grants review but denies relief.