Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/598us1r3_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

34 

CRUZ v. ARIZONA 

Barrett, J., dissenting 

the  Alabama  Supreme  Court's  decision  unmistakably  re-
vealed its hostility toward the NAACP's federal rights.  See 
also  Ford  v.  Georgia,  498  U. S.  411,  425  (1991)  (Georgia  Su-
preme  Court  decision  was  inadequate  because  it  applied 
precedent that was inapplicable “by its own terms”); Barr v. 
City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 146, 149–150 (1964) (South Caro-
lina  Supreme  Court  ruling  was  inadequate  because  that 
court  had  proceeded  differently  in  an  “identical”  case  a  few 
weeks later). 

Today's  Court,  while  admitting  that  the  novelty  prong  of 
inadequacy is “reserved for the rarest of situations,” ante, at 
26,  concludes  that  the  Arizona  Supreme  Court's  application 
I 
of  Rule  32.1(g)  falls  in  the  same  category  as  Patterson.
respectfully  disagree.  Unlike  the  state  courts  in  cases  like 
Patterson, the Arizona Supreme Court did not contradict its 
own  settled  law.  Instead,  it  confronted a  new  question  and 
gave an answer reasonably consistent with its precedent. 

The  ordinary  rule  in  Arizona  is  that  criminal  defendants 
must  present  any  constitutional  challenges  on  direct  review 
or  in  a  timely  postconviction-review  petition.  Ariz.  Rules 
Crim. Proc. 32.2(a), 32.4(b)(3)(A) (2020).  Rule 32.1(g) allows 
a  second  or  delayed  bite  at  the  postconviction-relief  apple 
when “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.” 

On  several  occasions,  the  Arizona  Supreme  Court  has  ad-
dressed  whether  an  intervening judicial  decision  constitutes 
a “signifcant change in the law” for purposes of Rule 32.1(g). 
For instance, it has considered whether this Court's decisions 
signifcantly changed the content of federal law.  E. g., State 
v.  Bigger,  251  Ariz.  402,  412,  492  P.  3d  1020,  1030  (2021)  (a 
decision  that  “affrmed  the  Supreme  Court's  jurisprudence” 
was  not  a  signifcant  change);  State  v.  Valencia,  241  Ariz. 
206,  209,  386  P.  3d  392,  395  (2016);  see  also  State  v.  Poblete, 
227  Ariz.  537,  540,  260  P.  3d  1102,  1105  (App.  2011).  It  has 
also  analyzed whether  intervening state-court  decisions sig-

Page Proof Pending Publication