State v. Williams, 1 CA-CR 16-0301-PRPC

Damon Williams was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from shooting at his girlfriend’s house, including discharge of a firearm at a structure, aggravated assault, criminal damage, and endangerment.
This court previously affirmed Williams’s convictions on direct appeal.
Williams filed a Rule 32 post-conviction petition asserting his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an alibi (Williams said he was at a gas station during the shooting).
The superior court dismissed the Rule 32 petition as not colorable, concluding Williams offered only speculation rather than evidentiary support for prejudice or deficient performance.
Williams sought review in the Court of Appeals; the court granted review but adopted the superior court’s reasoning and denied relief.
Williams also attempted to raise counsel’s failure to request an alibi jury instruction on review, but that argument was not raised below and thus was not considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate alibi	Williams: counsel did not investigate; had counsel done so, alibi evidence would have created reasonable doubt	State: petitioner offered only speculation and no demonstrable proof of deficient performance or prejudice	Court: Dismissed — speculative assertions insufficient; no colorable Strickland claim
Failure to request alibi jury instruction (procedural default)	Williams (on review): counsel was ineffective for not requesting an alibi instruction	State: issue not raised in superior court; therefore not preserved for review	Court: Not addressed on merits — claim not raised below, so waived
Request for fundamental-error review	Williams: invited court to review for fundamental error	State: Rule 32 is not a vehicle for fundamental-error review; direct-appeal review already found no reversible error	Court: Declined — Rule 32 petition not entitled to fundamental-error review

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (adoption of Strickland in Arizona)
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (standard of review for Rule 32 dismissal)
State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264 (requirement to show demonstrable probability of different outcome)
State v. Vaughn, 163 Ariz. 200 (ineffectiveness must be demonstrable, not speculative)
State v. Meeker, 143 Ariz. 256 (supporting principle on speculative claims)
State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272 (appellate adoption of trial court’s correct ruling when adequately explained)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (Rule 32 is not a vehicle for fundamental-error review)
State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575 (preservation requirement for claims on review)