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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

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.

FILED 9-10-2019
STATE v. GIBLER

Decision of the Court

2 

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) 
STATE v. GIBLER

Decision of the Court

3 

(“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.