State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez, 293 P.3d 495

Gomez was convicted in 2001 of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault, and later resentenced after Ring v. Arizona required jury consideration of aggravators.
On remand for resentencing in 2006, Gomez elected to represent himself (pro per) with advisory counsel; he remained self-represented through multiple deadlines and disclosures.
By 2008–2009 Gomez failed to meet Rule 15.2 disclosure deadlines, prompting the court to warn of losing pro per status and then revoke it in 2009, appointing counsel.
Gomez challenged the revocation of pro per status, arguing it was improper given compliance with some rules and that appointed counsel did not provide added value or experts.
Gomez sought change of counsel in 2009; the court denied without an evidentiary hearing, applying LaGrand factors, and ultimately proceedings were delayed until 2010.
At trial, the State sought the (F)(6) especially cruel aggravator; the court independently reviewed the death sentence as to pre‑2002 culpability, and Gomez’s mitigation was found insufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pro per revocation was an abuse of discretion	Gomez contends compliance; argues no serious rule violations.	State argues repeated noncompliance endangered orderly proceedings.	Affirmed revocation; court acted within discretion.
Whether denial of change of counsel required an evidentiary hearing	Gomez claims irreconcilable conflict; requests hearing.	State asserts no complete breakdown; LaGrand factors weighed.	No evidentiary hearing required; denial not abuse of discretion.
Whether the evidence supports the (F)(6) especially cruel aggravator	Gomez disputes cruelty based on sequence of blows and consciousness.	State contends victim conscious during part of attack; substantial evidence of cruelty.	Evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt; especially cruel established.
Propriety of the death sentence given mitigating evidence	Gomez asserts mitigating factors (family ties, upbringing, lack of prior felony).	State argues mitigation insufficient to warrant leniency.	Mitigation not substantial; death sentence affirmed.

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (self-representation may be revoked for obstructionist conduct and failure to comply with court orders)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to represent oneself; must comply with rules)
Whalen, 192 Ariz. 103 (Ariz. 1997) (upholding revocation of pro per status for noncompliance)
Torres, 208 Ariz. 340 (Ariz. 2004) (need for inquiry into irreconcilable conflict before change of counsel)
LaGrand, 152 Ariz. 483 (Ariz. 1987) (inquiry into motion for substitution balanced with judicial economy)
Cromwell, 211 Ariz. 181 (Ariz. 2005) (disagreement with counsel alone does not require new counsel)
State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (Ariz. 2006) (contextual guidance on cruelty and mitigation factors (cite if used in analysis))