Agendas and Cases before the Court

ARIZONANS FOR SECOND CHANCES et al v HOBBS

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0098-SA

JESSIE D. v DCS/F.V./M.D./M.D./C.D.

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0321-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 9/22/2020

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 5/27/2020

Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-JV 19-0073

ANTHONY GARCIA v HON. BUTLER/STATE

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0298-PR

Oral Argument held on 6/4/2020

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted on 4/28/2020

Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division 2 Case No. 2 CA-SA 19-0017 

STATE BAR v HON. WILLIAM O’NEIL/JUAN MARTINEZ

Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0035-SA

Decision Order issued on 7/13/2020

Petition for Special Action jurisdiction accepted on 4/28/2020 

Petition for Review granted on 12/10/2019 as rephrased:

 1.  Did the trial court correctly apply the definition of adaptability in A.R.S. § 13-753(K)(1) in light of the decisions in Moore v. Texas, 137 S.Ct. 1039 (2017) and Moore v. Texas, 139 S.Ct. 666 (2019)?

 2.  Did Altamirano meet his burden of proving intellectual disability? 

Petition for Review granted to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:

Petition for Review granted as to these issues as rephrased on 3/31/2020:

 1.  Was Lynch v. Arizona, 136 S. Ct. 1818 (2016) (Lynch II) a significant change in the law for purposes of Ariz. R. Cr. P. 32.1(g)?

 2.  Is Lynch II retroactively applicable to petitioner on collateral review?

 3.  If Lynch II applies retroactively, would its application have probably overturned petitioner’s sentence per Rule 32.1(g)? 

STATE v DAVID JOSEPH DUFFY

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0386-PR

Oral Argument to be held on 9/22/2020

Case Summary not yet available

Petition for Review granted as to these issues, as rephrased on 5/27/2020: 

1.  Whether a claim that the trial court failed to adequately protect a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel can be raised for the first time on appeal or whether it must be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief.

2.  Whether the court of appeals erred when it found that the trial court made an insufficient inquiry into the joint representation in this matter where, inter alia, defense counsel avowed that both defendants had signed a waiver of any conflict arising from the joint representation.

Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 18-0071

Petition for Review granted as to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:

Do sentences that exceed the petitioner’s expected lifespan and are the equivalent of life without parole violate Eighth Amendment protections as articulated by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)? 

Petition for Review granted as to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:

Do sentences that exceed the petitioner’s expected lifespan and are the equivalent of life without parole violate Eighth Amendment protections as articulated by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)? 

Petition for Review granted on 5/28/2019 as to 1. Was Trujillo entitled to a jury finding on M.A.C.’s age when that fact increased the mandatory minimum sentence affecting sex-offender registration?  2. Was the error harmless?  3.  Should this Court reconsider the opinion in State v. Noble, 171 Ariz. 171, (1992) 

Petition for Review granted on 10/29/2019 as to Issue #2 as rephrased:

Did petitioner preserve fundamental error review for individual claims of prosecutorial misconduct by arguing that cumulative instances of prosecutorial misconduct constituted fundamental error?