State v. Giamboi

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

v.

KEATHEN GIAMBOI, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0437
FILED 07-29-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202200754
The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Bob Kerry Law, Tucson
By Robert A. Kerry
Counsel for Appellant

Keathen Giamboi, Eloy
Appellant
 STATE v. GIAMBOI
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Keathen Giamboi appeals his convictions and sentences for
attempted second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and
possession of dangerous drugs. Giamboi’s counsel has advised us that after
a diligent search of the record, counsel has found no arguable, non-
frivolous questions of law and asks us to conduct an Anders review of the
record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); State v. Leon, 104 Ariz.
297 (1969). Giamboi filed a supplemental brief, raising issues we address
in this decision. We have reviewed the record and Giamboi’s arguments
and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Giamboi. See State
v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 In June 2022, Giamboi was driving his car in circles and
blowing up dust in a truck stop dirt lot in Kingman, Arizona. Another
driver, the victim, pulled into the lot, exited his truck, and began arguing
with Giamboi. Giamboi threw a coffee cup out of his car window at the
victim while driving away. The victim then threw a rock at Giamboi’s car
and taunted him by slapping his chest. Giamboi turned back and drove
towards the victim, hitting him with his car. Giamboi then circled back and
ran over the victim while he was lying on the ground. The victim sustained
severe injuries.

¶4 Law enforcement officers located the car and Giamboi a few
miles from the truck stop. Upon searching Giamboi, the officers found keys
to the car and a small bag containing what was later identified as
methamphetamine.

¶5 A grand jury indicted Giamboi on one count of attempted
first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault based on serious

2
 STATE v. GIAMBOI
Decision of the Court

physical injury and using a dangerous instrument, and one count of
possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine).

¶6 The first trial ended in a mistrial. After a subsequent five-day
trial, the jury found Giamboi guilty of the lesser-included offense of
attempted second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and
possession of dangerous drugs. Giamboi waived his right to have the jury
further determine sentencing enhancements and aggravating
circumstances.

¶7 At sentencing, the court found causing serious physical injury
was an aggravating circumstance for the attempted second-degree murder
count and one count of aggravated assault. The court also found Giamboi
had one historical prior felony conviction.

¶8 The court imposed concurrent sentences of 18 years for
attempted second-degree murder, 7 years for one aggravated assault
conviction, and 12 years for the second aggravated assault conviction, with
757 days of presentence incarceration credit. The court also imposed a 3-
year sentence for the possession of dangerous drugs conviction, to run
consecutively to the other counts with no credit for time served. The court
imposed 36 months of community supervision following release.

DISCUSSION

¶9 Giamboi raises several issues in his supplemental brief, none
of which were raised in the superior court.

¶10 Giamboi first contends he was “forced into having a public
defender” because law enforcement officers seized his phone and credit
cards upon his arrest and he was unable to “call anyone for help.” He also
argues his first public defender retired due to actions by the State. Giamboi
cites no record evidence to substantiate these claims, and we found none.
An appointed public defender represented him throughout the
proceedings as trial counsel. At trial, the State asked the court to confirm
whether Giamboi wanted to be represented by that attorney, which it did,
and Giamboi responded affirmatively. Giamboi has shown no error.

¶11 Giamboi also contends his trial counsel gave him “bad advice
. . . not to testify.” We construe this argument as a claim for ineffective
assistance of counsel, which can only be resolved in a post-conviction relief
proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a); State v. Chavez, 243 Ariz. 313, 318,
¶ 15 (App. 2017). We therefore decline to address it.

3
 STATE v. GIAMBOI
Decision of the Court

¶12 Giamboi next contends his second trial resulted in a “hung
jury” because Juror #1 allegedly “testified that he [was] the boyfriend of the
DPS chief’s daughter.” Giamboi appears to be referring to Juror #1 stating
during voir dire that he knew another prospective juror’s daughter, who
was the wife of a Department of Public Safety captain. Giamboi’s counsel
asked Juror #1 whether this would affect his judgment in this case. Juror
#1 answered it would not affect his judgment because he was “fairly
decisive and pretty good at sticking to [his] beliefs.” Giamboi’s counsel did
not move to strike Juror #1. The prospective juror whom Juror #1 knew
was not empaneled on the jury. Giamboi fails to show Juror #1 was biased,
and we discern no error. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.4(b) (“The court, on motion
or on its own, must excuse a prospective juror . . . if there is a reasonable
ground to believe that the juror . . . cannot render a fair and impartial
verdict.”); State v. Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. 197, 210, ¶ 30 (2018) (“[W]e
defer to the decision of the trial judge who actually heard the testimony and
observed the juror’s demeanor.”).

¶13 Giamboi contends he was wrongly convicted of possession of
dangerous drugs because he had a methamphetamine prescription.
Giamboi did not present any evidence showing the methamphetamine
found in his possession was prescribed. He has thus shown no error.

¶14 Giamboi also argues the State suppressed exculpatory video
evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). To prove this
claim, Giamboi must show: (1) the evidence was favorable to him; (2) the
State suppressed it; and (3) prejudice resulted. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S.
263, 281–82 (1999).

¶15 The truck stop had three cameras pointing at the incident: the
front camera, Camera 31, and Camera 32. Giamboi argues the State
disclosed video footage from Camera 32 to his first attorney but that the
footage later disappeared through “collusion” and “malice.” Giamboi
submits that footage from Camera 32 would have shown he did not
intentionally drive towards the victim.

¶16 Giamboi fails to show that the State suppressed evidence.
First, if the State disclosed the video to Giamboi’s first attorney as he alleges,
the State did not suppress the evidence. See Milke v. Mroz, 236 Ariz. 276,
282, ¶¶ 12–13 (App. 2014) (explaining suppression occurs when the State
fails to disclose exculpatory evidence); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.1. Further,
Giamboi’s suppression argument is belied by the record because no
evidence indicates the Camera 32 video footage that Giamboi is referring to
existed. The truck stop manager who turned over all of the video footage

4
 STATE v. GIAMBOI
Decision of the Court

and the detectives who received it all testified there was no footage of the
incident recorded by Camera 32. And Giamboi fails to show how this video
footage would have been favorable to him. The jury saw video footage of
the incident from Camera 31 showing Giamboi hit the victim with his car
and then run the victim over. He fails to explain how video footage of the
same incident but from a different angle would have been favorable to him.
He has shown no error.

¶17 Giamboi next argues he has post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), which renders him “mindless” when he is “under attack,” and is
the only reason he fled the scene after the incident. Giamboi says he was
“misrepresented” as a violent person. His arguments reveal no trial error.
Unless a defendant asserts an insanity defense at trial, which Giamboi did
not do, a defendant is generally prohibited from offering evidence of PTSD
to negate the mens rea required to commit the crime. See State v. Malone, 247 Ariz. 29, 31, ¶ 8 (2019); State v. Reaves, 252 Ariz. 553, 562, ¶ 20 n.2 (App.
2022).

¶18 Giamboi finally argues that two detectives lied in court, “not
only about [the Camera 32 video], but multiple impeachment issues.” He
does not establish that the detectives lied, nor does our review of the record
reveal any evidence of perjury or prosecutorial misconduct.

¶19 In addition to evaluating the arguments raised in Giamboi’s
supplemental brief, we have reviewed the entire record for reversible error.
See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). We find none. The
record contains sufficient evidence to support Giamboi’s convictions and
sentences. The record reflects that Giamboi was present and represented
by counsel for all critical stages of the proceedings. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 6.1,
19.2. All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Giamboi’s sentences were within the
statutory guidelines. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1104(A)(1), -1204(A)(1), (2), -
3407(A)(1), -701, -702, -704, -801; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.

CONCLUSION

¶20 We affirm Giamboi’s convictions and sentences. Upon the
filing of this decision, Giamboi’s counsel shall inform Giamboi of the status
of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no further obligations
unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to
the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140
Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Giamboi has thirty days from the date of this

5
 STATE v. GIAMBOI
Decision of the Court

decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration
or petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3(a), 31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

6