State v. Hampton
1 CA-CR 15-0214-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 18, 2017Background
- Hampton was convicted in two Maricopa County cases of various offenses; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
- He filed timely Rule 32 post-conviction petitions alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; both were summarily dismissed in July 2011.
- In January 2015 Hampton filed a consolidated, untimely, successive Rule 32 petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective concerning a joint plea offer and invoked the Martinez exception.
- The superior court summarily dismissed the second petition as successive and untimely, concluding it failed to state a claim for relief.
- Hampton sought review, arguing Martinez allows him to overcome Arizona’s Rule 32 time bars; the Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Hampton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez permits a defendant to raise ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims in an untimely, successive Rule 32 petition in Arizona | Martinez’s equitable rule lets him overcome Rule 32 time bars because his prior Rule 32 counsel was ineffective | Martinez does not apply to Arizona Rule 32; Arizona defendants have no federal constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings | Martinez does not apply; superior court correctly dismissed the untimely/successive petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (Equitable rule allowing federal habeas review of certain claims when first post-conviction counsel was ineffective)
- State v. Escareno-Meraz, 232 Ariz. 586 (App. 2013) (Martinez holding does not apply to Arizona Rule 32; no right to counsel for non-pleading defendants in post-conviction proceedings)
- State v. Petty, 225 Ariz. 369 (App. 2010) (ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims generally cannot be raised in untimely and successive Rule 32 petitions)