Carillo v. State

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

FRANCISCO NUNEZ CARRILLO, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-HC 25-0002
FILED 07-07-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2018-146733-001
The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Francisco Nunez Carrillo, Eloy
Appellant

CARRILLO v. STATE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Veronika Fabian and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Francisco Nunez Carrillo appeals the superior court’s order
denying his request to be released from prison under A.R.S. § 13-4121,
which authorizes a person unlawfully imprisoned to petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.

¶2 In June 2019, a jury found Carrillo guilty of two counts of
aggravated assault and one count of discharge of a firearm within city
limits. The superior court sentenced Carrillo to concurrent prison terms of
24 years for the aggravated assault convictions and 3.75 years for
discharging the firearm.

¶3 Carrillo appealed and his counsel filed an Anders brief. See
State v. Carrillo, 1 CA-CR 19-0492, 2020 WL 4007047, at *1, ¶ 1 (Ariz. App.
July 16, 2020) (mem. decision) (“Carrillo I”). This court vacated one of
Carrillo’s aggravated assault convictions and sentences because they were
multiplicitous and thus violated double jeopardy protections. Id. at *3,
¶¶ 13–14. The remaining convictions and sentences were affirmed. Id. at
*4, ¶ 17.

¶4 In 2020, Carrillo petitioned for post-conviction relief in the
superior court, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and multiplicitous
convictions. The superior court dismissed his petition, noting Carrillo was
precluded from obtaining relief for any issue previously adjudicated on
appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2). In September 2021, this court
granted review of the petition but denied relief.

¶5 Three years later, Carrillo filed a notice requesting post-
conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and newly-
discovered material facts. The superior court dismissed Carrillo’s request
because he failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

¶6 In December 2024, Carrillo filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the supreme court, asserting he was being wrongfully held in
custody. See Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order No. HC-24-0012 (Mar. 3, 2025). The

2

CARRILLO v. STATE
Decision of the Court

supreme court issued an order denying his petition and noted that Carrillo
could seek appropriate relief in the superior court. Id. Carrillo then filed a
prosecution of writ (“Habeas Petition”) in the superior court, asserting he
is being unlawfully imprisoned due to multiplicitous convictions. The
superior court denied his Habeas Petition, and Carrillo appealed.

¶7 As best we can tell, Carrillo again argues his two convictions
for aggravated assault are multiplicitous because they stemmed from one
act, and thus his sentence was illegal and excessive. However, these issues
cannot be properly challenged under the narrow scope of a habeas corpus
proceeding.

¶8 Generally, “the writ of habeas corpus may be used only to
review matters affecting a court’s jurisdiction.” In re Oppenheimer, 95 Ariz.
292, 297 (1964). “The sole function of habeas corpus is to obtain the release
of one unlawfully detained.” State v. Abbott, 103 Ariz. 336, 339 (1968).
Carrillo does not raise any issue affecting the superior court’s jurisdiction
to enter a judgment of guilt and sentence him to prison.

¶9 Instead, Carrillo challenges the validity of his convictions and
sentences, which means the superior court should have treated Carrillo’s
Habeas Petition as one for post-conviction relief pursuant to Arizona Rule
of Criminal Procedure 32. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3(b) (noting that any
application or request for relief, regardless of its title, that challenges the
validity of a conviction or sentence shall be treated as a request for post-
conviction relief). Even so, Carrillo’s Habeas Petition would not have
included a colorable claim because he has participated in two Rule 32
proceedings, and more importantly, this court essentially granted Carrillo’s
request for relief in Carrillo I. Thus, we affirm the superior court’s order
denying Carrillo’s Habeas Petition.

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

3