State v. Olson, 1 CA-CR 15-0632-PRPC

Christopher Todd Olson was convicted by jury of aggravated assault (a dangerous offense) in 2010 and sentenced to 15.75 years; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
Olson filed a first pro se Rule 32 post-conviction petition after counsel declined to raise issues; it challenged alleged perjured testimony, contradictory evidence, ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, and use of old priors at sentencing; the superior court dismissed without a hearing.
Olson subsequently filed a second Rule 32 petition alleging prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, on appeal, and in post-conviction proceedings.
The superior court dismissed the second petition as successive, precluded, and/or untimely; it issued two substantively identical dismissal orders in September 2015.
On petition for review, Olson argued the superior court abused its discretion by summarily dismissing his successive claims and by barring ineffective-assistance claims tied to the first Rule 32 proceeding.
The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief, concluding Olson’s claims were precluded, untimely, unsubstantiated, and that non-pleading defendants have no right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings.

Issue	Olson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether superior court abused discretion by summarily dismissing second Rule 32 petition without hearing	Superior court improperly precluded him from raising ineffective-assistance claims in second petition and should have held a hearing	Petition was successive, untimely, and failed to state a colorable claim; no hearing required	No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed
Whether ineffective-assistance claims at trial or on direct appeal could be raised in the second petition	Claims were not previously waived and should be considered	Claims are precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(3) because they were or could have been raised earlier	Precluded; Olson failed to show any Rule 32.2(b) exception
Whether a non-pleading defendant is entitled to appointed counsel in Rule 32 proceedings under Martinez v. Ryan	Martinez requires appointment of counsel to overcome defaulted ineffective-assistance claim	Martinez does not obligate Arizona to provide counsel to non-pleading defendants in post-conviction proceedings	Rejected; no right to counsel for non-pleading defendant in Rule 32 context
Whether Olson pleaded sufficient facts to support a colorable claim warranting an evidentiary hearing	His petition contained factual allegations sufficient to require a hearing	Petition contained generalizations and unsubstantiated claims; summary dismissal appropriate	Insufficient factual/legal development; no hearing required

State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323 (1990) (standard of review for summary dismissal of Rule 32 petitions)
State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392 (1985) (no hearing required for conclusory or unsubstantiated ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (subsequent ineffective-assistance claims are precluded if raised or could have been raised earlier)
State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1 (2002) (preclusion principles for collateral challenges)
State v. Escareno-Meraz, 232 Ariz. 586 (App. 2013) (no right to appointed counsel for non-pleading Rule 32 petitioners)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (addressing counsel in initial-review collateral proceedings; not held to create Arizona right for non-pleading defendants)