Opinion ID: 653184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural Default on Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Text: 16 Antonelli contends that the district court improperly concluded that he had procedurally defaulted on his claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to request lesser-included offense instructions on shoplifting. Rule 31.19(c)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that only issues presented to the court of appeals may be asserted in a petition for review to the supreme court. Although Antonelli raised this claim in his petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, he had not raised this issue in his appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Further, Antonelli offered no justification for his failure to raise this issue on appeal, and therefore, did not make the requisite showing of cause for the default and resulting prejudice. Accordingly, the district court properly found that Antonelli defaulted on this claim. Harris, 489 U.S. at 262. 17