State v. Beasley
1 CA-CR 16-0095-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2017Background
- In 2013 a jury convicted Telly Onturio Beasley of four counts of forgery and one count of possession/use of marijuana; he received concurrent one-year prison terms for forgery and one year probation for marijuana. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Beasley filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction petition and an amended petition raising numerous claims: grand-jury presence/jurisdiction, speedy-trial, evidentiary and Confrontation Clause issues, Brady/insufficient evidence, jury instruction and partiality claims, various trial-court and prosecutorial errors, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
- The superior court found most claims precluded (because they were or could have been raised on direct appeal), deemed the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claim not colorable, and dismissed new issues raised for the first time in Beasley’s reply as waived.
- Beasley sought review of the Rule 32 dismissal. The appellate court granted review but denied post-conviction relief, finding waiver and preclusion proper and Beasley’s IAC allegations unsupported and non-colorable.
- The court emphasized Rule 32’s strict compliance requirements (pleading, evidence attachments, and exceptions to preclusion) and reiterated that conclusory assertions and incorporated-by-reference briefs do not satisfy the evidentiary and pleading burdens for an IAC claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of claims raised first in reply | Beasley argued the court should consider newly presented claims (newly discovered evidence; appellate IAC) | State/court argued those claims were raised late and waived because Beasley never sought leave to amend | Waived: claims first raised in the reply were properly dismissed for waiver |
| Preclusion of claims that could have been raised on direct appeal | Beasley contended the State had to prove claims were precluded | State/court argued Rule 32 places burden on petitioner to show why claims were not previously raised and to invoke a Rule 32.2(b) exception | Held for the State: petitioner bears burden; claims were precluded and dismissal proper |
| Colorability of IAC claims | Beasley alleged multiple trial counsel errors (failure to subpoena witnesses, investigate, challenge discovery timing, object to evidence/instructions, etc.) | State/court argued allegations were conclusory, lacked supporting affidavits/evidence, and could reflect reasonable strategy — thus not colorable under Strickland | IAC not colorable: petition lacked evidentiary support and reasonable-competence allegations required for an evidentiary hearing |
| Incorporation by reference of prior filings | Beasley attempted to incorporate issues/arguments from lower filings into his petition for review | State/court argued Rule 32.9 prohibits incorporation by reference; petitions must specifically set forth issues with record citations | Held for the State: incorporation by reference is improper; petition must state specific claims and authorities |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (appellate standard: review for abuse of discretion in post-conviction dismissals)
- State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142 (petitioner must assert grounds bringing him within Rule 32 exceptions; burden on petitioner)
- Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598 (strict compliance with Rule 32 required)
- State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (discusses colorability standard for IAC claims)