Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/598us1r3_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

24 

CRUZ v. ARIZONA 

Opinion of the Court 

voted for a life sentence without parole, I would have voted 
for that option.”  Id., at 269. 

Cruz  thereafter  moved  for  a  new  trial,  arguing  that  the 
instructions did not give the jury “an accurate and complete 
understanding  of  the  consequences  of  a  non-death  verdict.” 
Id.,  at  137.  The  trial  judge  denied  the  motion.  He  con-
cluded,  erroneously,  that  the  jury  had  been  “correctly  in-
structed  on  the  law,”  and  found  it  “entirely  speculative” 
whether Cruz would be considered for parole after 25 years. 
Id., at 169–170. 

On  direct  appeal,  Cruz  again  pressed  his  Simmons  claim. 
The  Arizona  Supreme  Court  rejected  it.  Repeating  the 
same legal error made by the trial court, the court reasoned 
that  Simmons  was  distinguishable  because  “[n]o  state  law 
would have prohibited Cruz's release on parole after serving 
twenty-fve years.”  Cruz, 218 Ariz., at 160, 181 P. 3d, at 207. 
Having  raised  his  Simmons  claim  on  direct  review,  Cruz 
was  precluded  from  raising  it  again  in  his  initial  state  post-
conviction  petition.  See  Ariz.  Rule  Crim.  Proc.  32.2(a)(2). 

C 

After  Cruz's  conviction  became  fnal,  this  Court  decided 
Lynch,  thereby  reaffrming  that  Simmons  applies  in  Ari-
zona.  Cruz then fled a successive motion for state postcon-
viction  relief  pursuant  to  Arizona  Rule  of  Criminal  Proce-
dure  32.1(g).  That  Rule  permits  a  successive  petition  for 
postconviction  relief  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.” 
Cruz argued that Lynch was a signifcant change in the law 
because it “had transformative effects on previously binding 
Arizona law.”  App. 387. 

The  Arizona  Supreme  Court  denied  relief  after  holding 
that  Lynch  was  “not  a  signifcant  change  in  the  law.”  251 
Ariz.,  at  207,  487  P.  3d,  at  995.  As  the  Arizona  Supreme 
Court itself noted, it had interpreted Rule 32.1(g) to require 

Page Proof Pending Publication