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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

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; RELI EF 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 9-5-2017STATE 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 o f 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 ple d no contes t to attempted sexual abuse, a C lass 4 felony and dangerous crime against children. The parties stipulated to a seven

- year term of probation with six month s' incarceration

. T he superior court accepted the plea agreement and imposed seven years' probation, with four months' incarceratio n. 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 S i nce tha t time , Andrada

- Pastrano has filed several post

conviction 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 misco nduct, including Brady violations

. T he essence of his claim s 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 c ourt' s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction r elief. 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 evid ence 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 falsel y 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 i s " newly discovered evidence

. " However, this "fact" is not evidence

. Andrada

- Pastrano provided no new "facts," m aterial or otherwise, to warrant any further proceedings. Ariz. R. Crim. P. (" Rule " ) 3 2 .2(c). Therefore, his claims are precluded. Rule 32.2(a) (2)

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