Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/598us1r3_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 5

20 

CRUZ v. ARIZONA 

Opinion of the Court 

Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Petitioner  John  Montenegro  Cruz,  a  defendant  sentenced 
to  death,  argued  at  trial  and  on  direct  appeal  that  his  due 
process  rights  had  been  violated  by  the  trial  court's  failure 
to permit him to inform the jury that a life sentence in Ari-
zona would be without parole.  See Simmons v. South Caro-
lina,  512  U. S.  154,  161–162  (1994)  (plurality  opinion);  id.,  at 
178 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment).  Those courts re-
jected Cruz's Simmons argument, believing, incorrectly, that 
Arizona's sentencing and parole scheme did not trigger appli-
cation  of  Simmons.  See  State  v.  Cruz,  218  Ariz.  149,  160, 
181 P. 3d 196, 207 (2008). 

After  the  Arizona  Supreme  Court  repeated  that  mistake 
in  a  series  of  cases,  this  Court  summarily  reversed  the  Ari-
zona  Supreme  Court  in  Lynch  v.  Arizona,  578  U. S.  613 
(2016)  (per  curiam),  and  held  that  it  was  fundamental  error 
to  conclude  that  Simmons  “did  not  apply”  in  Arizona.  578 
U. S., at 615. 

Relying on Lynch, Cruz fled a motion for state postconvic-
tion relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g). 
That Rule permits a defendant to bring a successive petition 
if  “there  has  been  a  signifcant  change  in  the  law  that,  if 
applicable  to  the  defendant's  case,  would  probably  overturn 
the  defendant's  judgment  or  sentence.”  Ariz.  Rule  Crim. 
Proc.  32.1(g)  (Cum.  Supp.  2022);  see  also  ibid.  (Cum.  Supp. 
2017). 

The Arizona Supreme Court denied relief after concluding 
that  Lynch  was  not  a  “signifcant  change  in  the  law.”  251 
Ariz.  203,  207,  487  P.  3d  991,  995  (2021).  The  Arizona  Su-
preme  Court  reached  this  conclusion  despite  having  repeat-
edly  held  that  an  overruling  of  precedent  is  a  signifcant 
change  in  the  law.  See  id.,  at  206,  487  P.  3d,  at  994  (The 
“ `archetype of such a change occurs when an appellate court 
overrules previously binding case law' ”). 

The Court granted certiorari to address whether the Ari-
zona  Supreme  Court's  holding  that  Lynch  was  not  a  signif-

Page Proof Pending Publication