Lino Chavez v. Mark Brnovich, 42 F.4th 1091

Chavez pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in Arizona and was sentenced to 16 years; Arizona law bars direct appeals for pleading defendants in noncapital cases, so he pursued an "of-right" post-conviction relief (Rule 32) proceeding.
Appointed PCR counsel filed a short Notice of Completion stating no colorable claims and remained in an advisory capacity; Chavez filed a pro se Rule 32 petition and the Superior Court denied relief.
The Arizona Court of Appeals denied Chavez’s petition in a published opinion that was ambiguous about whether Anders protections apply or whether Arizona’s Rule 32 procedure satisfied Anders.
The federal district court interpreted the state opinion as rejecting Anders, reviewed the adequacy of Arizona’s procedure de novo, concluded the procedure was deficient under Anders, and conditionally granted habeas relief.
The Ninth Circuit reversed: it held Anders applies to Arizona of-right Rule 32 proceedings, that the district court should have applied AEDPA deference to the state court, and that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision could reasonably be viewed as finding Arizona’s procedure adequate under Anders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Anders v. California protections apply to Arizona Rule 32 of-right PCR proceedings	Anders applies because Rule 32 is the functional equivalent of a first appeal of right and so triggers the right to counsel and Anders protections	State alternatively argued the Arizona court did not apply Anders or that Chavez waived aspects of the claim; on appeal the state urged AEDPA deference to the state court's ruling	Anders applies to Arizona of-right Rule 32 proceedings (court presumes state court followed Supreme Court precedent and gives the state court benefit of doubt)
Whether Arizona’s Rule 32 procedures satisfied Anders and whether the district court should have applied AEDPA deference	Arizona’s procedure is nearly identical to the defective California procedure in Anders and therefore constitutionally inadequate	Arizona’s procedure materially differs from Anders: counsel must identify "colorable" claims, counsel may not withdraw and remains advisory, so the procedure can satisfy Anders; AEDPA deference applies to the state court’s determination	Ninth Circuit held the district court erred by reviewing de novo; under AEDPA a fairminded jurist could conclude Arizona’s procedure satisfies Anders, so the grant of habeas relief was reversed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes procedures required when appointed appellate counsel seeks to withdraw)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (states may adopt different procedures so long as they reasonably ensure appeals are resolved according to their merit)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (right to counsel extends to first appeal of right)
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (recognition of right to counsel on first appeal)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference standard; treat unexplained state-court decisions with Richter framework)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (courts have leeway when legal rule is general)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 ("objectively unreasonable" standard under AEDPA)
Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (presumption that state courts know and follow federal law)