State v. Noble, 1 CA-CR 16-0459-PRPC

Andrew Milo Noble was convicted by a jury in 1987 of three counts of child molestation and one count of kidnapping; sentenced to three concurrent 25-years-to-life terms plus a consecutive 25-years-to-life term.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences in State v. Noble.
In 2016 Noble filed a successive Rule 32 petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel (counsel allegedly prevented him from testifying and told him jurors would disbelieve him because he is Black) and requesting resentencing under Blakely v. Washington.
The superior court summarily dismissed the successive petition; Noble sought review in the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief, holding Noble’s claims were precluded or meritless under Arizona procedural rules and precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for preventing Noble from testifying	Trial counsel refused to let Noble testify and advised against testifying because jurors would disbelieve him due to his race	Claim is untimely and precluded; record also shows Noble did testify on a collateral matter despite counsel's advice	Precluded as untimely under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2/32.4 and waived by prior proceedings
Challenge to consecutive 25-yr-to-life sentences	Sentences are unconstitutional and require review under Blakely	Claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is precluded under Rule 32.2(a)	Precluded because it could have been raised on appeal
Blakely (new-law) claim under Rule 32.1(g)	Blakely entitles Noble to resentencing or relief	Blakely announced a new rule that is not retroactive to convictions final before Blakely	Meritless: Blakely does not apply retroactively to Noble's 1987 conviction
New allegations about county post-conviction processing	County denies or does not address; Noble raises procedural complaints on review	Appellate courts will not consider matters not presented to the superior court	Not considered — appellate review limited to matters in the trial-court record

State v. Noble, 152 Ariz. 284 (1987) (affirming Noble's convictions and sentences)
State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1 (2002) (successive or previously omitted ineffective-assistance claims are waived and precluded)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (announced Sixth Amendment rule on judicial factfinding for enhanced sentences)
State v. Febles, 210 Ariz. 589 (App. 2005) (Blakely has no retroactive application to convictions final before decision)
State v. Martinez, 134 Ariz. 119 (App. 1982) (appellate courts review only matters appearing in the trial-court record)