State of Arizona v. Angelica Marlene Werderman, 237 Ariz. 342

Angelica Werderman was convicted after a jury trial of multiple offenses including two counts of aggravated driving with a drug or its metabolite present (A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(3)); convictions relied on presence of benzoylecgonine, a non-impairing cocaine metabolite.
She received concurrent prison terms, the longest being seven years; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Werderman filed a Rule 32 petition arguing State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris changed the law such that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions based on a non-impairing metabolite, and that counsel was ineffective for not raising that issue.
The trial court summarily denied relief, concluding Harris would not apply retroactively under Teague/Allen and thus was not a significant change in the law under Rule 32.1(g).
On review, the Court of Appeals granted review but held Harris did not constitute a "significant change in the law" for purposes of Rule 32.1(g) because it was merely the first case to interpret the ambiguous phrase "its metabolite." The court denied post-conviction relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris is a "significant change in the law" under Rule 32.1(g)	Harris broke new ground by limiting § 28-1381(A)(3) to impairment-capable metabolites, so Werderman’s conviction (based on non-impairing metabolite) is invalid	Prior precedent did not establish that non-impairing metabolites could not support convictions; Harris is the first to resolve ambiguity and should not be treated as a significant change	Court held Harris is not a significant change in the law for Rule 32.1(g) because it was simply the first decision to resolve an ambiguity rather than overruling or changing binding precedent
Whether Harris must be applied retroactively to Werderman’s conviction	Werderman argued retroactive application would require relief	State argued Harris should not apply retroactively; trial court applied Teague/Allen and concluded Harris was not retroactive	The court did not reach retroactivity because it found Harris was not a significant change in the law and denied relief

State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 234 Ariz. 343, 322 P.3d 160 (Ariz. 2014) (holds § 28-1381(A)(3) "metabolite" limited to metabolites capable of causing impairment)
State v. Phillips, 178 Ariz. 368, 873 P.2d 706 (App. 1994) (addressed vagueness/overbreadth of predecessor statute; did not interpret "its metabolite")
State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528, 968 P.2d 601 (App. 1998) (equal protection challenge to predecessor statute; did not define "metabolite")
State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, 203 P.3d 1175 (App. 2009) (explains what qualifies as a "significant change in the law" under Rule 32.1(g))
State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 260 P.3d 1102 (App. 2011) (procedure: if a rule is a significant change, court next reviews retroactivity)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 166 P.3d 945 (App. 2007) (standard of review for Rule 32 rulings)
State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1, 126 P.3d 148 (App. 2006) (error of law is an abuse of discretion)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for retroactive application of new rules)
Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1986) (retroactivity principles for new procedural rules)