State v. Thomas
1 CA-CR 15-0429-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- In 1990 Omar Lateef Thomas was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated assault and found to have been on probation for other felonies; he received four concurrent life terms with no parole for 25 years.
- Thomas’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal; he filed multiple prior post-conviction petitions that were denied.
- He filed a successive Rule 32 petition arguing his maximum sentence had expired or was unlawful due to a ‘‘significant change in the law’’ and denial of access to a clemency procedure.
- Thomas relied on a 1993 amendment to A.R.S. § 13-604.02 (reducing mandatory minimums for offenses committed while on release) and the 1994 Disproportionality Review Act (DRA), which temporarily provided a clemency/commutation review process.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the successive petition; Thomas sought review arguing the dismissal misunderstood that he raised a new claim under Rule 32.1(d) and (g).
- The Court of Appeals granted review but affirmed dismissal, concluding Thomas was not entitled to retroactive benefit of the 1993 amendment and was ineligible for relief under the DRA-based clemency process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas may obtain relief under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(d) (custody after sentence expired) | His maximum sentence has expired given statutory changes and lack of clemency access | Thomas remains lawfully confined under his original sentence; no expiration | Denied — no showing sentence expired |
| Whether Thomas may obtain relief under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g) (significant change in law) | 1993 amendment to §13-604.02 and DRA constitute significant changes that would overturn his sentence | The 1993 amendment is not retroactive; DRA relief was unavailable to him as a statutory eligibility matter | Denied — amendment not retroactive; no entitlement to DRA clemency relief |
| Whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the successive petition | The court mischaracterized his filing and should have treated it as a permissible new claim | No material factual or legal issue existed to warrant relief; summary dismissal appropriate under Rule 32.6(c) | Denied — summary dismissal proper |
| Whether Thomas was arbitrarily denied access to clemency under the DRA | The repealed DRA created a clemency process he was unlawfully blocked from using | Record shows Thomas was statutorily ineligible for DRA relief | Denied — no basis to find arbitrary denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 193 Ariz. 115 (App. 1998) (standard of review for denial of post-conviction relief)
- Schrock v. State, 149 Ariz. 433 (1986) (post-conviction relief standards)
- Stine v. State, 184 Ariz. 1 (App. 1995) (statutory nonretroactivity principle applied)
- McDonald v. Thomas, 202 Ariz. 35 (2002) (discussing the Disproportionality Review Act and its effect on clemency/commutation review)