State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 16 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-95-0294-PR,CR-95-0294-PR |
| Citation | 184 Ariz. 456,910 P.2d 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Respondent, v. Herbert Allen SMITH, Petitioner. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
This case is before us on the state's petition for review from a court of appeals' opinion affirming Defendant's sentence for theft but remanding the case with instructions to have counsel review the record and file a supplemental petition for review in the court of appeals. State v. Smith, 183 Ariz. 424, 904 P.2d 1248 (App.1995). The state asks us to vacate the court of appeals' holding that defendants who plead guilty are constitutionally entitled to counsel when pursuing in the court of appeals their discretionary petition for review from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 5(3).
Pursuant to Rules 32.1 and 32.4(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Defendant Herbert Allen Smith filed a petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR") from a sentence imposing an aggravated term of ten years following his guilty plea to theft, a class 3 felony. Smith claimed that his sentence was cruel and unusual and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. II, § 15 of the Arizona Constitution.
Smith was represented by counsel in his post-conviction proceedings in the trial court. That court dismissed the petition pursuant to Rule 32.6(c) 1 for failure to raise a material issue of fact or law that would entitle Smith to relief. Smith's counsel then informed Smith that he would not represent him in petitioning for review to the court of appeals and filed a motion to withdraw as counsel which the trial court ultimately granted. The court of appeals denied Smith's request for appointment of counsel. Smith then filed a pro per petition for review asserting the same constitutional claims raised in the initial petition for post-conviction relief.
The court of appeals concluded that Smith's sentence was not cruel and unusual. Smith, 183 Ariz. at 426, 904 P.2d at 1250. Relying on its interpretation of Montgomery v. Sheldon, 181 Ariz. 256, 889 P.2d 614 (Montgomery I ), op. supp., 182 Ariz. 118, 893 P.2d 1281 (Montgomery II ) (1995), the court also held that the trial court committed fundamental error in permitting Smith's counsel to withdraw before the court of appeals disposed of Smith's discretionary petition for review. Smith, 183 Ariz. at 428, 904 P.2d at 1252. The court therefore remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that counsel review the record and, on Smith's behalf, file a supplemental petition for review in the court of appeals. Id.
We granted the state's petition for review to decide whether the court of appeals improperly found that Smith, as a PCR defendant, had a constitutional right to appointed counsel when pursuing his discretionary appellate review to the court of appeals. Because the court of appeals misconstrued Montgomery, we affirm the trial court's denial of Smith's petition for post-conviction relief and vacate the court of appeals' opinion.
Contrary to the court of appeals' statement, Montgomery did not "create[ ] a new avenue of appeal." Smith, 183 Ariz. at 427, 904 P.2d at 1251. In Montgomery I, we held "only that if counsel refuses to proceed, a pleading defendant has a right under Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24 to file a pro se PCR petition." 181 Ariz. at 260, 889 P.2d at 618 (emphasis added). Our analysis in Montgomery was not based on the premise that a defendant cannot waive the right to direct appeal. As we explicitly stated in Montgomery I:
[W]e have never held, and we do not hold today, that a pleading defendant cannot waive his right to a direct appeal consistent with art. II, § 24.... [T]his case, however, involve[s] only Rule 32 proceedings, a distinct form of appellate review.... [T]he waiver provisions in Rules 17.1 and 27.8 specifically exclude Rule 32 proceedings.
181 Ariz. at 259 n. 2, 889 P.2d at 617 n. 2 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). It is through operation of the rules governing post-conviction relief that our constitutional guarantee of appellate review in all cases is effectuated for pleading defendants. Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24; Wilson v. Ellis, 176 Ariz. 121, 123, 859 P.2d 744, 746 (1993).
A pleading defendant waives the right to direct appeal and may seek review only by filing in the trial court a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32. Wilson, 176 Ariz. at 123, 859 P.2d at 746. If denied, the defendant may file a petition for review in the court of appeals. Rule 17.1(e); Montgomery I, 181 Ariz. at 258, 889 P.2d at 616.
In making its required review and disposition of the PCR, the trial court provides the pleading defendant a form of post-conviction appellate review via motion under Rule 32. Wilson, 176 Ariz. at 123, 859 P.2d at 746. In this respect, a Rule 32 petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court is "analogous to a direct appeal for a pleading defendant." Montgomery I, 181 Ariz. at 260 n. 5, 889 P.2d at 618 n. 5. Therefore, because review and disposition of the PCR is the only constitutionally guaranteed appeal, an indigent pleading defendant is entitled to appointed counsel for the trial court PCR proceedings, as provided in Rule 32.4(c), and is also entitled to a transcript of the plea proceedings. Wilson, 176 Ariz. at 124, 859 P.2d at 747.
If, after conscientiously searching the record for error, appointed counsel in a PCR proceeding finds no tenable issue and cannot proceed, the defendant is entitled to file a pro per PCR. Montgomery I, 181 Ariz. at 260, 889 P.2d at 618. As in constitutionally guaranteed direct appeals by non-pleading defendants, should counsel be unable to proceed, he or she must so notify the court and the client. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d 154, 156 (1984). Absent a finding of dilatory tactics or other abuse, notification of counsel's inability to proceed, after a significant portion of the time allowed for filing has lapsed, constitutes good cause under Rule 32.4(c) to grant the defendant an appropriate extension of time in which to file a pro per PCR. Montgomery I, 181 Ariz. at 261, 889 P.2d at 619.
After counsel or the pro per defendant submits the post-conviction petition to the court and the trial court makes its required review and disposition, counsel's obligations are at an end. See Shattuck, 140 Ariz. at 585, 684 P.2d at 156. Following the trial court's disposition, counsel need only inform the defendant of the status and defendant's future options, unless counsel's review, or that of the trial court, reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the court of appeals. 2 See id.
Our constitution does not require, and the rules do not extend, the right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants in Rule 32 proceedings beyond the trial court's mandatory consideration and disposition of the PCR. See id. at 584, 684 P.2d at 156; State v. Shedd, 146 Ariz. 5, 8, 703 P.2d 552, 555 (App.1985). As occurred in the present case, the pleading defendant can petition the appellate court for review of the trial court's denial of the PCR. Rule 32.9(c). The court of appeals, however, retains discretion over whether to grant review. Rule 32.9(f). Accordingly, because review from denial of post-conviction relief is discretionary, a pleading defendant does not have a right to appointed counsel in such proceedings. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. at 584, 684 P.2d at 156.
Based in part on A.R.S. § 13-4035, Montgomery also holds that the court of appeals must review for fundamental error when considering whether to grant review of a pleading defendant's denial of post-conviction relief. Montgomery I, 181 Ariz. at 260 n. 5, 889 P.2d at 618 n. 5; Montgomery II, 182 Ariz. at 119, 893 P.2d at 1282. That statute has since been repealed, effective July 13, 1995. S.B. 1151, Ch. 198, 42nd Leg., 1995 Ariz.Sess.Law. Because no court rule provides for fundamental error review of a petition for review to the appellate courts, such review is no longer required.
Contrary to the concurring justice's belief, post at 461, 910 P.2d at 6, this court did not conclude in Montgomery that the constitution alone imposed upon the court of appeals an obligation to review for fundamental error in Rule 32 proceedings. In Montgomery II, we concluded only that, "[c]onsistent with Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24 and A.R.S. § 13-4035, the court of appeals must examine the record before it for fundamental error...." 182 Ariz. at 120, 893 P.2d at 1283. The constitution guarantees the right to appeal. But A.R.S. § 13-4035, now repealed, imposed fundamental error review. See Montgomery II, 182 Ariz. at 120, 893 P.2d at 1283; see also id. at 119, 893 P.2d at 1282 ().
Apparently, the majority of this court and the concurring justice have differing views in these cases. Compare Wilson, 176 Ariz. 121, 859 P.2d 744, with id. at 125, 859 P.2d at 748 (Martone, J., dissenting); and compare Montgomery I, 181 Ariz. 256, 889 P.2d 614, with id. at 261, 889 P.2d at 619 (Martone, J., dissenting); and compare Montgomery II, 182 Ariz. 118, 893 P.2d 1281, with id. at 121, 893 P.2d at 1284 (Martone, J., dissenting); see also post at 460, 910 P.2d at 5.
While the concurring justice is free, of course, to disagree and advance his individual interpretation of the holdings in Wilson,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
... ... See, e.g., State v. Krone, 182 Ariz. 319, 321 n. 1, 897 P.2d 621, 623 n. 1 (1995). But this is a preferred practice for prudential purposes, not a requirement. State v. Smith, 160 Ariz. 507, 513, 774 P.2d 811, 817 (1989). We find no error ... 9. Deadlocked Jury--Jury Coercion ... Jackson argues that the trial court coerced the jury into reaching a verdict ... After the jury had deliberated 4 hours on a Friday ... ...
-
Smiley v. Ryan
... ... MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION Petitioner, presently incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison Complex at Buckeye, Arizona, filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 on February 25, 2013 (Doc. 6). On ... Smith , 202 Ariz. 446, 449, 46 P.3d 1067, 1070 (2002) Page 12 (quoting Ariz.R.Crim.P. 32.2, Comments). For others of "sufficient constitutional magnitude," ... ...
-
State v. Mata
... ... The next factor for which we supplied a label in Gretzler was "needless mutilation of the victim." See Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52, 659 P.2d at 11 (citing State v. Vickers, 129 Ariz. 506, 515, 633 P.2d 315, 324 (1981), and State v. Smith, 131 Ariz. 29, 638 P.2d 696 (1981), as proof that needless mutilation of the victim is evidence of heinousness and depravity). Although we did not use the Gretzler label of "needless mutilation" in either Vickers or Smith, we did exhaustively describe the facts which, not coincidentally, involved ... ...
-
Williams v. Schriro
... ... ORDER RE: CLAIM 16 ... ROSENBLATT, District Judge ... Petitioner Aryon Williams, Jr. ("Petitioner") is a state prisoner under sentence of death for the first degree murder of Rita DeLaO. Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Discovery, Expansion of the ... counsel's late notice to petitioner that he had not identified any meritorious arguments), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459, 910 P.2d 1, 4 (1996). In contrast, Petitioner submitted twenty-eight unpublished PCR court orders granting capital petitioners ... ...