State v. Melville, 1 CA-CR 15-0259-PRPC

Melville was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated assault and two counts of armed robbery; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
He filed a Rule 32 post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not requesting a mistrial after the trial court apparently told jurors the State had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also alleged appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the trial-court instruction error on direct appeal.
The superior court denied relief, finding the jury repeatedly received correct oral and written instructions about the State’s burden, and counsel reminded jurors during closing arguments; the court concluded no deficient performance or prejudice was shown.
The Court of Appeals granted review but affirmed the denial, noting the jury acquitted or deadlocked on several charges, suggesting jurors understood the burden of proof.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for a mistrial after the trial court apparently instructed jurors that the State had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt	Trial counsel should have sought a mistrial because the court’s instruction misstated the State’s burden, creating prejudice	The State (respondent) argued the jury was correctly instructed elsewhere: repeated oral instructions, correct written instructions, and counsel’s closing statements preserved the burden of proof; no prejudice shown	Court held no colorable ineffective-assistance claim: record shows correct instructions and no prejudice
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the instruction on direct appeal	Melville argued appellate counsel should have raised the instruction error on appeal	Respondent argued any error was harmless given correct written/oral instructions and jury behavior	Court held appellate counsel was not shown to be deficient or prejudicial
Whether Melville can raise an ineffective-assistance claim for rejecting a plea offer in his petition for review	Melville raised the plea claim in his petition for review	Respondent argued the claim was not raised below and is procedurally defaulted	Court declined to address the plea claim because it was not raised in the Rule 32 petition

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (standard of review for denial of post-conviction relief for lack of colorable claim)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (Arizona adoption of Strickland test)
State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540 (no need to decide both Strickland prongs if one is not met)
State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66 (procedural default: issues not raised in Rule 32 petition need not be addressed on review)