State v. Hernandez, 1 CA-CR 14-0754-PRPC

Background

Arnulfo Rosas Hernandez was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, attempted armed robbery, seven counts of kidnapping, and seven counts of aggravated assault; sentenced to life plus additional concurrent and consecutive terms totaling 100 years.
This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal in State v. Rosas-Hernandez.
Hernandez filed multiple prior post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings; all four earlier proceedings were unsuccessful.
In 2014 Hernandez filed an untimely, successive fifth PCR notice and petition asserting, among other claims, ineffective assistance of trial and PCR counsel.
The superior court summarily dismissed the untimely, successive PCR as failing to state a claim for which relief could be granted and denied rehearing; Hernandez sought review.
The court granted review but denied relief, holding his Rule 32.1(a) ineffective-assistance claims are barred in an untimely proceeding and that Stewart and Martinez do not allow him to overcome Rule 32.4(a) time limits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stewart allows raising ineffective-assistance claims in a successive PCR despite waiver	Hernandez: Stewart permits certain claims to be raised in successive PCRs because he did not knowingly waive them	State: Stewart does not apply to untimely proceedings; waiver exceptions do not bypass Rule 32.4(a) time bars	Court: Stewart inapplicable to untimely proceedings; Rule 32.1(a) claims barred irrespective of waiver
Whether Martinez v. Ryan permits overcoming state PCR time limits for ineffective-assistance-of-PCR-counsel claims	Hernandez: Relies on Martinez to excuse procedural default/time limits where initial PCR counsel was ineffective	State: Martinez concerns federal habeas and non-pleading defendants; it does not alter Arizona state PCR time limits	Court: Martinez does not affect Arizona PCR proceedings or permit bypassing Rule 32.4(a)
Whether the 2014 petition stated a claim for which relief could be granted in an untimely successive PCR	Hernandez: Argued claims of ineffective assistance warranted review	State: Petition is untimely and successive; claims not among those allowed in untimely proceedings	Court: Petition fails to state a claim cognizable in an untimely, successive PCR; dismissal affirmed
Whether relief is available despite prior unsuccessful PCRs	Hernandez: Prior PCR counsel ineffective, so successive review should be permitted	State: Reiterates procedural bars and that only Rule 32.1(d)-(h) claims may be raised untimely	Court: Relief denied; procedural rules bar the claims

Key Cases Cited

Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446 (2002) (explains when claims may be raised in successive PCRs without waiver)
State v. Rosas-Hernandez, 202 Ariz. 212 (App. 2002) (decision affirming convictions and sentences on direct appeal)
State v. Escareno-Meraz, 232 Ariz. 586 (App. 2013) (Martinez does not alter Arizona state PCR time limits)
State v. Lopez, 234 Ariz. 513 (App. 2014) (untimely PCR may only raise claims under Rule 32.1(d)-(h))
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (federal habeas rule allowing ineffective-assistance-of-post-conviction-counsel argument for pleading defendants; does not control state PCR timing)