State v. Keeten

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GREGERY MARTEL KEETEN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0549 PRPC
FILED 06-02-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-105544-003, CR2016-149044-001
The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Philip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Gregery Martel Keeten, Florence
Petitioner
STATE v. KEETEN
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B E C K E, Judge:

¶1 Gregery Keeten petitions this court for review from the
dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed under Arizona Rule
of Criminal Procedure 32. For the reasons below, we grant review but deny
relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2012, Keeten pled guilty to armed robbery in Maricopa
County Superior Court Case No. CR2012-105544-003. The superior court
suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation. In 2016,
Keeten was charged with misconduct involving weapons in Maricopa
County Superior Court Case No. CR2016-149044-001. The State arrested
him, petitioned to revoke probation in the 2012 case, and held him in
custody during the pendency of the 2016 case. A jury found Keeten guilty
of the weapons charge in 2018 and found he was on felony probation when
he committed the offense. After revoking Keeten’s probation for the armed
robbery conviction because of the jury verdict, the superior court sentenced
him to consecutive terms of four years’ imprisonment for the armed
robbery conviction and 10 years’ imprisonment for the misconduct
involving weapons conviction. See A.R.S. § 13-708(C), (E). The court
awarded Keeten 1,037 days of presentence incarceration credit on the
sentence for armed robbery and zero days of credit on the sentence for
misconduct involving weapons.

¶3 Keeten appealed from his conviction and sentence for
misconduct involving weapons, but he filed no separate appeal in the
probation revocation case. We affirmed. State v. Keeten, 1 CA-CR 18-0525,
2019 WL 4644035 (Ariz. App. Sep. 24, 2019) (mem. decision). Keeten then
filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the weapons case, which was
also unsuccessful. State v. Keeten, 1 CA-CR 20-0420 PRPC, 2021 WL 982708
(Ariz. App. Mar. 16, 2021) (mem. decision).

2
STATE v. KEETEN
Decision of the Court

¶4 In 2025, Keeten filed a notice and petition for post-conviction
relief in both cases. Keeten asserted his sentences were illegal, violated due
process, and caused him to be held in custody beyond sentence expiration
because 643 days of presentence incarceration credit was wrongly applied
to the armed robbery sentence in the probation revocation case rather than
the misconduct involving weapons sentence imposed after trial. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), (c), (d). The 643 days corresponded to the period Keeten
spent in jail between his arrest on October 15, 2016, and sentencing on July
20, 2018. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition and denied
Keeten’s motion for rehearing.

¶5 Keeten timely petitioned for review. In our discretion, we
grant review. See A.R.S. § 13-4239; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16.

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review the superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-
conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court
makes an error of law or does not adequately investigate the facts needed
to support its decision. State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 407, ¶ 6 (2021).

¶7 In his petition for review, Keeten reasserts his argument that
his time in custody between his 2016 arrest and 2018 sentencing should
have been applied to his weapons sentence in the trial case rather than his
armed robbery sentence in the probation case. He argues the superior court
erred by not addressing the crux of his argument and by dismissing his
petition without any response from the State.

¶8 Even if the superior court misinterpreted Keeten’s argument
as asking for double credit, its ultimate decision to deny relief was sound.
See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508, ¶ 7 (2015) (“We will affirm a trial
court’s decision [denying post-conviction relief] if it is legally correct for
any reason.”).

¶9 The sentencing judge correctly applied credit to the armed
robbery sentence for the period between Keeten’s 2016 arrest and 2018
sentencing because Keeten was held in custody during that time pursuant
to the probation revocation case. See A.R.S. § 13-712(B) (“All time actually
spent in custody pursuant to an offense until the prisoner is sentenced to
imprisonment for such offense shall be credited against the term of
imprisonment . . . .”). The record shows that Keeten was taken into custody
on October 15, 2016, on a warrant for the probation violation. The superior
court ruled that Keeten was bailable on the weapons charge in the new case
but that he should be held without bail in the probation revocation case. See

3
STATE v. KEETEN
Decision of the Court

Wilson v. Higgins, 251 Ariz. 282, 287, ¶¶ 25–26. (2021); Ariz. R. Crim. P.
7.2(c). Thus, contrary to Keeten’s contention, he was held in custody
pursuant to the revocation case and not solely on account of the new charge.
The 643 days of presentence incarceration credit for that period was
properly applied to his sentence in the revocation case. See State v. Brooks,
161 Ariz. 177, 181 (App. 1989) (applying presentence incarceration credit to
sentence imposed after probation revoked for time spent in custody on
probation violation warrant).

¶10 Nor did the superior court err by dismissing Keeten’s petition
without any response from the State. The court did not rule on Keeten’s
petition until the time had elapsed for the State to respond. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 32.9(a) (giving the State 45 days to respond to a petition). No
authority required the court to compel a response from the State or entitled
Keeten to a response. Cf. State v. Cawley, 133 Ariz. 27, 29 (App. 1982)
(observing that a court is not required to grant a defendant’s request merely
because the State fails to respond to it); State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior
Court (Blendu), 174 Ariz. 450, 452 (App. 1993) (explaining that a statutory
deadline for a response does not make such response mandatory but rather
subjects the non-responding party to a confession of error analysis).

CONCLUSION

¶11 For these reasons, we grant review and deny relief.

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

4