1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alvie Copeland Kiles,

Petitioner,

v. 

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-17-04092-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Alvie Copeland Kiles is an Arizona State prisoner under sentence of death. Pending 

before the Court is Kiles’s motion to authorize habeas counsel to represent him in state 

court for the purpose of pursuing relief under Arizona’s postconviction DNA testing 

statute. (Doc. 131.) Respondents take no position on the relief requested. (See id.) The 

Court grants the motion.

On December 14, 2022, Respondents filed a Notice of Disclosure indicating that a 

woman had come forward claiming to be S.G., the infant murder victim in this case, and

provided her DNA to the Yuma Police Department. (Doc. 111 at 2.) On February 14, 2023, 

Respondents filed a Notice of Disclosure indicating that DNA testing results of the 

individual were negative and that the biological sample collected from the claimant did 

“not match S.G., or either parent of S.G.” (Doc. 121.) 

Kiles now asserts that, despite a request for further information from Respondents,

the disclosure of the test results is incomplete. Missing from the disclosure are “underlying 

data” and “laboratory notes” necessary to make sense of what appear to be anomalous test 

Case 2:17-cv-04092-GMS Document 133 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

results—for instance “an unexplained male DNA in the sample from the woman claiming 

to be S.G.” (Doc. 131 at 4, 5.) Kiles seeks to litigate his right to this information under 

Arizona’s postconviction DNA testing statute, A.R.S. § 13-4240(G). (Doc. 131 at 5). 

Previously, the Court denied Kiles’s request that the Court order the parties to meet and 

confer regarding a DNA testing protocol in these federal proceedings as unnecessary in 

light of state statutory authority by which Kiles could obtain the relief he seeks, opining 

that “it would be unlikely that Respondents could successfully argue that he has no interest 

in the results of the DNA.” (Doc. 115 at 3.) 

The Criminal Justice Act provides for federally appointed counsel to represent their 

client in “other appropriate motions and procedures.” 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e). Section 3599(e) 

does not ordinarily include state habeas proceedings, because they are not “properly 

understood as a ‘subsequent stage’ of judicial proceedings but rather as the commencement 

of new judicial proceedings.” Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 189 (2009). Nevertheless, “a 

district court may determine on a case-by-case basis that it is appropriate for federal counsel 

to exhaust a claim in the course of her federal habeas representation.” Id. at 190 n.7; see 

also In re Commonwealth’s Motion to Appoint Counsel Against or Directed to Defender 

Ass'n of Phila., 790 F.3d 457, 462 (3d Cir. 2015) (“In some circumstances, a federal court 

can appoint counsel to represent a federal habeas corpus petitioner in state court for the 

purpose of exhausting state remedies before pursuing federal habeas relief.”) (citing 

Harbison, 556 U.S. at 190 n.7).

Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds good cause to permit Kiles’s federallyappointed counsel to represent him for the sole purpose of pursuing relief under Arizona’s 

postconviction DNA testing statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e); Harbison, 556 U.S. at 190 

n.7. Federal counsel has experience litigating under Arizona’s forensic-testing statutes, 

(see Doc. 64 at 8), substantial experience working on capital cases, and is familiar with the 

underlying factual and legal grounds for the anticipated state court litigation. Additionally, 

Kiles has alleged in these habeas proceedings that his state postconviction counsel were 

ineffective, thus the appointment of current counsel will avoid unnecessary delay in 

Case 2:17-cv-04092-GMS Document 133 Filed 09/14/23 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

obtaining new counsel in state court and familiarizing them with the case. 

By granting Kiles’s motion, the Court does not convey any position with respect to 

the merits of the proposed litigation.

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Kiles’s Motion for Authorization for Habeas Counsel to 

Represent Petitioner in State Court (Doc. 131) is GRANTED. Federally-appointed counsel 

is authorized to represent Petitioner in state court for the purpose of pursing relief under 

Arizona’s postconviction DNA testing statute.

Dated this 13th day of September, 2023.

Case 2:17-cv-04092-GMS Document 133 Filed 09/14/23 Page 3 of 3