State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz, 340 P.3d 1069

Background

Daniel Diaz was convicted in 2007 for possession of methamphetamine for sale and sentenced to an aggravated 25‑year term; this Court affirmed the conviction.
Diaz timely filed a notice of post‑conviction relief (PCR), but his first PCR attorney failed to file a petition despite extensions; the trial court dismissed with prejudice and the court of appeals denied relief.
A second PCR counsel likewise failed to file a petition after obtaining extensions; that proceeding was also dismissed with prejudice and the court of appeals denied relief, referring the attorneys for possible discipline.
Diaz filed a third PCR proceeding; his third PCR attorney timely filed the first PCR petition on his behalf raising an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim that trial counsel’s advice caused Diaz to reject plea offers.
The trial court dismissed the third PCR petition as precluded under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3) (waiver) and alternatively 32.2(a)(2) (previous adjudication); the court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IAC claim is waived under Rule 32.2(a)(3) because it was "waived in a previous collateral proceeding"	State: Diaz waived the claim by failing to have it raised in earlier PCR proceedings	Diaz: He timely filed PCR notices but prior PCR counsel failed to file petitions through no fault of Diaz, so claim was not waived	Court: No waiver. Where prior PCR counsel never filed any petition and defendant was blameless, Rule 32.2(a)(3) does not preclude the claim
Whether defendant must personally waive IAC claim for preclusion to apply	State: Preclusion applies because IAC here involves plea decisions, typically waivable by counsel	Diaz: Personal waiver required only when the right affected is of sufficient constitutional magnitude	Court: Personal waiver not required for IAC claims that do not implicate a right of that constitutional magnitude; but unusual facts here prevent preclusion because defendant was denied opportunity to have any petition filed
Whether preclusion under Rule 32.2(a)(2) (previously adjudicated) applies	State: Merits already adjudicated in prior PCR proceedings	Diaz: No petition was filed previously, so merits were never adjudicated	Court: Rule 32.2(a)(2) does not apply because merits could not have been adjudicated absent a filed petition
Remedy when PCR counsel fails to file petitions causing dismissal	State: Dismissal appropriate under rules	Diaz: Dismissal punishes the defendant for counsel’s failures; remedy should allow adjudication	Court: Vacated and remanded for merits consideration; trial courts encouraged to sanction counsel rather than punish blameless defendants

Key Cases Cited

Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, 46 P.3d 1067 (explaining when counsel can waive claims in PCR and when personal waiver is required)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 166 P.3d 945 (discussing personal waiver requirement for constitutional rights in PCR context)
State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 39 P.3d 525 (noting IAC claims are typically raised in the first PCR proceeding)
Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 115 P.3d 1261 (PCR petition triggers consideration of PCR claims and related discovery)
State v. Petty, 225 Ariz. 369, 238 P.3d 637 (purpose of preclusion is to require raising all known claims in a single petition)
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton, 228 Ariz. 156, 264 P.3d 866 (defendants do not have a constitutional right to a plea bargain)
State v. Diaz, 224 Ariz. 322, 230 P.3d 705 (prior appeal affirming Diaz’s conviction and sentence)