State v. Witherspoon
1 CA-CR 15-0853-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Witherspoon pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree burglary and was sentenced to consecutive 10.5-year prison terms.
- He filed a timely notice for post-conviction relief (Rule 32); appointed counsel found no colorable claim and filed no petition.
- Witherspoon did not timely file a pro se Rule 32 petition; the superior court dismissed the Rule 32 proceeding.
- About nine months later he filed various filings (including a "Withdrawal of a Plea"), which the court treated as post-conviction filings and dismissed as untimely.
- He then filed an untimely combined notice/petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial and Rule 32 counsel, denial of a Donald hearing, and that a change in law excused untimeliness; the superior court dismissed, and he petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Witherspoon can raise ineffective-assistance claims despite untimely Rule 32 filing | Witherspoon: Martinez allows raising untimely IAC claims because initial collateral counsel was ineffective or absent | State: Martinez does not require state courts to consider untimely IAC claims; procedural rules bar new claims not raised earlier | Denied — Martinez does not compel state courts to entertain untimely IAC claims; Witherspoon did not raise Martinez below and cannot raise it first on review |
| Whether counsel (trial or Rule 32) was ineffective regarding consecutive sentences | Witherspoon: trial counsel ineffective for failure to prevent consecutive 10.5-year terms; Rule 32 counsel ineffective for missing the claim | State: claims are precluded or meritless; consecutive sentences proper because offenses occurred on different dates and involved different victims | Denied — claims precluded and substantively fail; consecutive sentences lawful under Ariz. law |
| Whether Rule 32 claims were procedurally precluded | Witherspoon: untimeliness excusable due to change in law and counsel failures | State: claims waived/precluded if could have been raised earlier; procedural rules require issues to be raised in lower court | Denied — claims were either precluded or not timely raised; court found no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Witherspoon was entitled to a Donald hearing on an earlier plea offer | Witherspoon: denied a Donald hearing related to a more favorable earlier plea | State: no valid basis shown to require a Donald hearing at this stage | Denied — no cognizable claim shown to warrant relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (2006) (successive IAC claims waived if raised or could have been raised earlier)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited federal habeas exception when initial-review collateral counsel absent or ineffective)
- State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (procedures for plea-withdrawal and related hearings)
- State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (2012) (appellate standard for reviewing Rule 32 rulings)
- State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (1985) (Arizona recognition of Strickland standard)
- State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464 (App. 1980) (need to present claims in superior court before raising on appeal)