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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GERARDO EDMUNDO ANDRADA-PASTRANO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0565 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 1991-007525

The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Gerardo Edmundo Andrada-Pastrano, Mesa

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen issued the decision of the court, in which 

Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined. 

FILED 9-5-2017
STATE v. ANDRADA-PASTRANO

Decision of the Court

2

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Gerardo Edmundo Andrada-Pastrano petitions this court for 

review from the dismissal of his sixth petition for post-conviction relief. We 

have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant 

review and deny relief.

¶2 In November 1992, Andrada-Pastrano pled no contest to 

attempted sexual abuse, a Class 4 felony and dangerous crime against 

children. The parties stipulated to a seven-year term of probation with six 

months' incarceration. The superior court accepted the plea agreement and 

imposed seven years' probation, with four months' incarceration. 

Andrada-Pastrano did not file a notice of post-conviction relief (PCR), and 

his conviction and the resulting term of probation became final March 8, 

1993. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a); State v. Febles, 210 Ariz. 589, 592, ¶ 9 (App. 

2005).

¶3 Since that time, Andrada-Pastrano has filed several postconviction proceedings.1 In his latest PCR, Andrada-Pastrano alleges 

claims he has made before, namely, newly discovered evidence, ineffective 

assistance of counsel, actual innocence, and prosecutorial misconduct, 

including Brady violations. The essence of his claims is that the State 

withheld evidence, including medical records and police reports, that cast 

doubt on the victim's credibility. After addressing each claim, the superior 

court summarily dismissed the proceeding. This petition for review 

followed.

¶4 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.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). Andrada-Pastrano has not 

shown any abuse of discretion or error of law.

¶5 In his petition for review, Andrada-Pastrano argues the State 

misrepresented the origin of medical records or medical evidence obtained 

by subpoena during his prosecution. He also argues that the medical 

evidence would have supported his contention that the victim in his case 

had falsely accused another man of rape. As noted, the superior court and 

this court have rejected these claims on multiple occasions.

1 For a detailed statement of the factual and procedural history of this 

case, see State v. Andrada-Pastrano, 1 CA-CR 16-0499 PRPC (Ariz. App. 

______,____) (mem. decision).
STATE v. ANDRADA-PASTRANO

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Andrada-Pastrano argues that the "fact" that the state argued 

an inconsistent position in an earlier PCR is "newly discovered evidence."

However, this "fact" is not evidence. Andrada-Pastrano provided no new 

"facts," material or otherwise, to warrant any further proceedings. Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. ("Rule") 32.2(c). Therefore, his claims are precluded. Rule 

32.2(a)(2). 

¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.