State v. Williams
1 CA-CR 16-0219-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2017Background
- Police responded to a shooting; a witness said Williams fired shots then fled with the weapon. Officers knew Williams was a felon and could not possess firearms.
- Officers obtained a search warrant for Williams’ residence; during the search they found 4 grams of heroin and 24 grams of methamphetamine in a desk drawer.
- After Miranda warnings, Williams admitted he was selling the drugs found in his home.
- Williams pleaded guilty to possession of dangerous drugs for sale and admitted a prior conviction; the court sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment.
- Williams filed a Rule 32 petition pro se alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC): counsel failed to conduct a defensive interview and failed to move to suppress the drugs because the warrant did not list drugs.
- The superior court summarily dismissed the Rule 32 petition; Williams appealed and the appellate court granted review but denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the drugs | Williams: Warrant listed only items related to the shooting, not drugs; a suppression motion would likely have succeeded and affected plea bargaining | State: Warrant authorized search of places where listed items might be found; drugs in desk drawer were properly searchable/seizable; suppression would likely fail | Court: No colorable IAC claim; counsel reasonably declined a futile suppression motion |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the Rule 32 petition | Williams: His allegations established a colorable claim warranting a hearing | State: Allegations, viewed against the record, did not show counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable | Court: No evidentiary hearing needed because claim was not colorable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (a warrant to search for items authorizes opening containers and drawers where the item might be found)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (IAC standard: performance and prejudice requirements)
- State v. DeCamp, 197 Ariz. 36 (1999) (officers authorized to be where they are may seize items in plain view if evidentiary value is apparent)
- James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20 (9th Cir. 1994) (counsel’s failure to make a futile motion is not ineffective assistance)