402 P.3d 442
Ariz.2017Background
- John V. Fitzgerald murdered his mother in 2005; convicted and sentenced to death; this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- After mandate, the court appointed post-conviction relief (PCR) counsel under A.R.S. § 13-4041(B) and Rule 32; Fitzgerald raised mental-competency concerns during his Rule 32 proceeding.
- Fitzgerald had prior Rule 11 competency proceedings at trial and penalty phases; he underwent restoration treatment and was found competent for trial and sentencing.
- During the PCR phase defense counsel and experts observed declining mental status; an expert who evaluated Fitzgerald in 2016 concluded he was incompetent to assist counsel in preparing the PCR petition.
- Fitzgerald moved the superior court to determine competency and stay PCR proceedings; the superior court denied the motion and the court of appeals declined jurisdiction; Fitzgerald sought review in the Arizona Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Fitzgerald's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 13-4041(B) or Rule 32.5 requires a competency determination before proceeding in capital PCR | §13-4041(B) + Rule 32.5 (and ABA guidelines) imply a right to competence so counsel can effectively communicate and comply with duties | Neither the statute nor Rule 32.5 (or ABA guidelines) creates a statutory right to competency in PCR; counsel can often proceed despite petitioner’s incompetence | Court held neither §13-4041(B) nor Rule 32.5 requires competency before PCR proceedings may proceed; no statutory right to competence in this context |
| Whether Rule 32.5’s requirement that petitioner verify petition under penalty of perjury requires petitioner competency | An incompetent petitioner cannot truthfully sign declaration; rule thus implies competency requirement | Rule 32.5 does not explicitly require competence; attorney may sign as next friend and the rule does not mandate staying PCR | Court held Rule 32.5 does not require competency or an automatic stay; attorney may proceed to file petition |
| Whether the ABA Guidelines create enforceable competency rights for capital PCR petitioners | ABA Guidelines (adopted by rule as guidance) impose duties that make petitioner competency necessary | ABA Guidelines are nonbinding guidance and cannot create substantive statutory rights | Court held ABA Guidelines do not create a statutory right to competency; they are advisory only |
| Whether trial court must sua sponte order competency evaluation in PCR | Fitzgerald urged court should evaluate competency when indicated to protect right to counsel and to develop IAC claims | State conceded court has discretion but argued no statutory or rule-based requirement to do so; undue delay harms finality and victims’ rights | Court held trial courts have inherent discretion to order competency evaluations when helpful or necessary and should do so promptly, but such evaluations are not categorically required |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (federal statutory right to counsel does not create a statutory right to competency in collateral proceedings)
- White v. State, 168 Ariz. 500 (convicted defendant’s competency not required for appeal; appeal should proceed regardless of competency)
- Spreitz v. State, 202 Ariz. 1 (IAC claims must generally be raised in Rule 32 post-conviction proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (states have no constitutional obligation to provide PCR counsel; procedures created must nonetheless comply with due process)