State v. Stewart
1 CA-CR 16-0585-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- Thomas Stewart, Jr. filed a successive post-conviction relief (PCR) petition roughly 13 years after conviction, seeking among other things DNA testing of two hairs found in his vehicle.
- The superior court treated Stewart’s filings as a single Rule 32.12 motion for post-conviction DNA testing and ordered the State to respond.
- The superior court summarily dismissed all claims and denied Stewart’s subsequent motion for rehearing.
- Stewart alleged (among other arguments) ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and that the court’s denial may have been influenced by a relationship between the prosecutor and a judge.
- The Court of Appeals granted review but concluded Stewart had not shown the superior court abused its discretion and adopted the superior court’s ruling, denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart was entitled to post-conviction DNA testing of two hairs | Stewart sought testing to challenge the convictions; argued court improperly denied DNA testing and may be biased | State opposed; superior court found no meritorious reason for testing and dismissed claims | Denied — no abuse of discretion in dismissing DNA testing request |
| Whether alleged judicial/prosecutorial relationship created conflict or bias | Stewart suggested prosecutor (Astrowsky) was related to a judge, implying improper influence | Superior court investigated and rejected any inference of bias; appellate court found no evidence of irreconcilable conflict | Denied — no basis for recusal or reversal on bias claim |
| Whether issues challenging the direct-appeal decision are cognizable in this PCR | Stewart argued this court erred on direct appeal and raised those errors now | State and court noted direct-appeal errors are not cognizable under Rule 32 and were not raised below | Denied — not cognizable and procedurally defaulted |
| Whether superior court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing other resurrected claims (IAC, prosecutorial misconduct) | Stewart reasserted prior claims as of constitutional magnitude and urged relief | Superior court identified and ruled correctly on issues; appellate court found rulings thorough and not an abuse of discretion | Denied — appellate court adopted superior court’s thorough rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 166 P.3d 945 (App. 2007) (standard of review for PCR rulings is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Petty, 225 Ariz. 369, 238 P.3d 637 (App. 2010) (requirement that successive PCR notices state meritorious reasons for delay)
- State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 821 P.2d 236 (App. 1991) (issues must be set forth with record references; incorporation by reference insufficient)
- State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 866 P.2d 1358 (App. 1993) (appellate courts need not restate correct trial-court rulings when adoption is appropriate)