State v. Cloud, 1 CA-CR 16-0217-PRPC

Lois Kay Cloud was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, conspiracy, solicitation, and facilitation; received concurrent life and term sentences. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Cloud filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction relief petition alleging actual innocence, illegal sentence, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The superior court summarily dismissed the petition as not presenting any colorable claim; Cloud petitioned for review to the Court of Appeals.
Cloud renewed an actual-innocence claim that this court had already rejected on direct appeal and offered no new evidence in Rule 32 proceedings.
Cloud claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing prejudice from delay under the speedy-trial claim based on her deteriorating health; the appellate decision found she had been able to participate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 32 petition warranted evidentiary hearing on actual innocence	Cloud: her convictions are actually wrongful; merits hearing required	State: claim was previously adjudicated on appeal; no new material presented	Dismissal affirmed; claim precluded because it was litigated on direct appeal and no new evidence was offered
Whether sentence was illegal and reviewable in Rule 32	Cloud: sentence illegal (claimed error not specified)	State: issue was waived by failure to raise on direct appeal; precluded	Dismissal affirmed; claim precluded as waived on direct appeal
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue prejudice from trial delay	Cloud: counsel should have argued her failing health caused prejudice under speedy-trial analysis	State: outcome on appeal would not have changed; Cloud contributed to delay and record shows she could participate	Dismissal affirmed; no colorable ineffective-assistance claim because prejudice not shown
Whether superior court abused discretion by summarily dismissing the petition	Cloud: summary dismissal improper without an evidentiary hearing	State: summary dismissal appropriate where no colorable claim is presented	Court: no abuse of discretion; Rule 32.6(c) dismissal appropriate

State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (Ariz. 2006) (standard of review for Rule 32 summary dismissal)
State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191 (Ariz. 1987) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
State v. Krum, 183 Ariz. 288 (Ariz. 1995) (definition of colorable claim entitling petitioner to evidentiary hearing)
State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217 (App. 2016) (colorable claim likely would have changed outcome)
State v. Lemieux, 137 Ariz. 143 (App. 1983) (viewing allegations against the entire record when assessing colorable claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Schurz, 176 Ariz. 46 (Ariz. 1993) (prejudice requirement under Strickland in Arizona)
State v. Herrera, 183 Ariz. 642 (App. 1995) (issues waived on appeal cannot be raised in post-conviction)
State v. Henry, 176 Ariz. 569 (Ariz. 1993) (factors considered in speedy-trial prejudice analysis)