Opinion ID: 2650680
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The judicial proceedings in Martinez.

Text: While his direct appeal was still pending, Martinez began a state collateral proceeding. Martinez, 132 S. Ct. at 1314. 44 DICKENS V. RYAN “Despite initiating this proceeding, [his appointed habeas] counsel made no claim trial counsel was ineffective and later filed a statement asserting she could find no colorable claims at all.” Id. The state trial court gave Martinez notice that he could file a pro se petition in support of postconviction relief. Id. Martinez did not respond, and the state trial court “dismissed the action for postconviction relief, in effect affirming counsel’s determination that Martinez had no meritorious claims.” Id. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Martinez’s conviction, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. Id. “About a year and a half later, Martinez, now represented by new counsel, filed a second notice of postconviction relief in the Arizona trial court.” Id. The Supreme Court explained: Martinez claimed his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to challenge the prosecution’s evidence. He argued, for example, that his trial counsel should have objected to the expert testimony explaining the victim’s recantations or should have called an expert witness in rebuttal. Martinez also faulted trial counsel for not pursuing an exculpatory explanation for the DNA on the nightgown. Martinez’s petition was dismissed, in part in reliance on an Arizona Rule barring relief on a claim that could have been raised in a previous collateral proceeding. Martinez, the theory went, should have asserted the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his first notice for postconviction relief. The Arizona Court DICKENS V. RYAN 45 of Appeals agreed. It denied Martinez relief because he failed to raise his claims in the first collateral proceeding. The Arizona Supreme Court declined to review Martinez’s appeal. 132 S. Ct. at 1314 (citations omitted). Martinez then filed a habeas petition in the District Court for the District of Arizona. That court “denied the petition, ruling that Arizona’s preclusion rule was an adequate and independent state-law ground to bar federal review.” Id. at 1315. We affirmed, relying “on general statements in Coleman that, absent a right to counsel in a collateral proceeding, an attorney’s errors in the proceeding do not establish cause for a procedural default.” Id. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and issued its opinion in Martinez.