State v. Chavez
1 CA-CR 15-0482-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Chavez pled guilty to second-degree murder (Class 1 dangerous felony) and was sentenced to the presumptive 16-year term.
- He filed a timely Rule 32 "of-right" post-conviction relief (PCR) petition; appointed PCR counsel filed a Montgomery-style notice saying no colorable claims existed, and Chavez then filed a pro se PCR petition.
- The superior court summarily dismissed the pro se PCR petition; Chavez sought review asking the appellate court to perform an Anders-type independent review of the record for arguable issues.
- The question was prompted in part by a federal district-court decision (Pacheco v. Ryan) holding Anders protections apply to Rule 32 of-right proceedings; the State and amici briefed the issue for this court.
- The court reviewed Arizona precedent and procedural rules and considered differences between direct appeal records and plea-based PCR proceedings (noting plea records are truncated and many PCR claims require extra-record investigation).
- The court granted review but denied relief, holding Arizona superior courts are not required to conduct Anders-type sua sponte review in Rule 32 of-right petitions; a concurrence urged the Arizona Supreme Court to consider a limited Anders-like procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Chavez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether superior courts must sua sponte perform Anders-type review of the record in Rule 32 of-right PCRs for pleading defendants | Anders protections apply because pleading defendants have a federal right to counsel in Rule 32 and thus deserve the same independent review counsel gets on direct appeal | Arizona precedent and Rule 32 do not require Anders review; plea cases have truncated records and PCR claims often need extra-record investigation; superior courts are not suited to perform Anders review or bear the systemic burden | No — superior courts are not required to conduct Anders-type review in Rule 32 of-right proceedings (relief denied) |
| Whether this appellate court must perform Anders-type review on discretionary review of an of-right PCR dismissal | Chavez sought the same record review by this court | Appellate review of Rule 32 dismissals is discretionary; no right to Anders review here | No — no entitlement to Anders-type review by this court on discretionary review |
| Whether lower federal-court decisions (e.g., Pacheco) compel Anders review in state PCRs | Federal habeas precedent requires Anders protections be applied to Rule 32 of-right proceedings | State courts are not bound by lower federal decisions and follow Arizona Supreme Court authority and state rules; federal habeas may later order relief but does not change current state procedure | Arizona courts are not bound by Pacheco; state procedure stands though federal courts may reach different conclusions in habeas actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes counsel-withdrawal procedure and independent court review when counsel deems appeal frivolous)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (Arizona adoption of Anders procedure for direct appeals)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (Anders procedures need not apply to state-created postconviction review rights)
- Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 (2005) (recognizes federal constitutional right to counsel in certain postconviction proceedings)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (states free to adopt procedures different from Anders so long as they adequately protect rights)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (examines adequacy of state procedures for appointed appellate counsel)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional claims predating the plea)
- State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456 (1996) (Arizona precedent rejecting requirement that trial courts perform Anders-type review in PCR proceedings)