Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arizona answered a certified question concerning the preclusive effect of Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3). It held that whether a claim requires a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver depends on the constitutional right allegedly violated, not on the merits of the particular claim. The court disapproved contrary suggestions in State v. French and State v. Curtis.

Holdings

1. At the time of Smith's third Rule 32 petition in 1995, whether an asserted claim was of sufficient constitutional magnitude to require a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver did not depend on the merits of the particular claim.
2. In determining whether a successive claim is precluded, the court examines the nature of the constitutional right allegedly affected, not the merits of the ineffective-assistance claim. If the right requires personal waiver and the defendant did not personally waive it, the claim is not precluded; otherwise, the claim is precluded.

Questions Presented

1. Under the 1995 version of Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3), does whether a claim is of sufficient constitutional magnitude to require a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver depend on the merits of the claim?
2. Or does the constitutional-magnitude inquiry depend on the particular constitutional right alleged to have been violated?

Disposition

other