Document: 536 U.S. 856 STEWART, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSv.SMITH No. 01-339. Supreme Court of the United States. Decided June 28, 2002. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Respondent filed a federal habeas petition, claiming, inter alia, ineffective assistance counsel. He had previously brought that claim in state petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arizona Rule Criminal Procedure 32, but County Superior found it waived under 32.2(a)(3) because he not raised two previous 32 petitions. The Federal District concluded court's ruling barred relief, Ninth Circuit reversed, finding procedural default was independent law and thus did bar review. This granted certiorari certified question concerning 32.2(a)(3)'s proper interpretation. latter court responded that, at time respondent's whether an asserted sufficient constitutional magnitude require knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver purposes depended upon merits particular right alleged have been violated. Held: properly refused review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Court's reply makes clear only requires courts categorize claim, evaluate claim's merits. When resolution depends on ruling, state-law prong holding is this direct jurisdiction precluded. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 75. Assuming same standard governs scope district power grant determinations are they do depend Although decision would be if rested primarily merits, record here reveals no such ruling. 241 F. 3d 1191, reversed remanded. PER CURIAM. 1 At issue case whether, when denied successive post-conviction respondent failed comply with (West 2000), law. Appeals thought not. We interpretation 32.2(a)(3). received response now reverse Circuit's decision. 2 * Respondent, Robert Douglas Smith, convicted 1982 first-degree murder, kidnaping, sexual assault. sentenced death murder count consecutive 21-year prison terms other counts. After series unsuccessful petitions writ corpus 28 C. §§ 2241 2254 States Arizona. alleged, among things, Sixth Amendment counsel violated his trial provided during sentencing phase trial. 3 ineffective-assistance 1995 Ariz. Crim. Proc. 32. Pima raise rejected contention excused appellate attorneys suffered from conflict interest between their responsibility toward allegiance Public Defender's office, which also member. 4 relied ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel relief. Like court, argument default. although regularly followed therefore adequate, see 1195, n. (2001) (citing Johnson Mississippi, 486 578, 587 (1988)), required consideration law, 3d, 1196-1197. applies different standards depending "sufficient magnitude." If is, rule "knowin[g], voluntar[y] intelligen[t]," merely omitted 32.2(a)(3), comment 2000). opined ruled determination See 1197 State French, 198 119, 121, 7 P. 128, 130 (App. 2000); Curtis, 185 112, 115, 912 2d 1341, 1344 1995)). 75 (1985), 534 157 (per curiam). II 5 Because we were uncertain about following Court: 6 "At third 1995, `sufficient magnitude' 121-122, 130-131 App. (1995), or violated, Espinosa, 200 503, 505, 29 278, 280 2001)?" S., 159. reply: "We hold voluntary Comment rather violated." Stewart 202 446, 447, 46 1067, 1068 (2002) (en banc). 8 does According Court, must "at its core, [a] implicates significant waiver." Id., 450, 1071. Courts need decide i. e., actually They identify what type there indication identification based requires. Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 652-653 (1979). 9 Our cases make "when our [direct review] precluded." Ake, supra, Even assuming as state-court judgment review, Coleman Thompson, 501 722, 729-732, 741 (1991), erred otherwise. 10 though nevertheless, interpreted order rejecting possibly resting record, however, 11 even reach prior As excuse, counsel, who members file member office. find excuse overcome H Pet. Cert. explained deputies office represent clients lawyers never allowed "a colorable counsel" go unstated. 2. read reference "colorable claim" conclusion rendered lacked merit, underlying 1197. In context, used rhetorical device emphasizing lack any might waiver. 12 examination voice opinion has valid cause court. remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 13 So ordered.

Category: 8