State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562

146 P.3d 63 (2006) · Supreme Court of Arizona · November 9, 2006 · No. CR-05-0533-PR

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3) did not preclude Donna Jean Bennett’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because her prior post-conviction counsel could not properly be expected to assert his own ineffectiveness. The court further held that Bennett stated a colorable claim based on appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence establishing causation for her felony-murder conviction. The court reversed the denial of post-conviction relief and remanded for a hearing on the merits.

Holdings

  1. Rule 32.2(a)(3) did not preclude Bennett's claim because her first post-conviction-relief proceeding was the first proceeding in which she could raise ineffective assistance of appellate counsel without requiring post-conviction counsel to assert its own ineffectiveness.
  2. Bennett stated a colorable claim because appellate counsel may have performed below objectively reasonable standards by failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on the fundamental causation element of felony murder, and there was a reasonable probability that the omitted challenge would have changed the outcome.
  3. The Arizona Supreme Court did not decide whether the evidence was sufficient to establish causation; it held that the superior court had applied an incorrect legal standard and must address the issue on remand.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3) precluded Bennett's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of causation supporting her felony-murder conviction.
  2. Whether Bennett stated a colorable ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
  3. Whether the State's evidence established the causation element of felony murder was not decided on the merits by the Arizona Supreme Court, but was identified as an issue the superior court must apply the correct legal standard to on remand.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (19)

  • State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 39 P.3d 525 (2002)(followed)
  • State v. Marlow, 163 Ariz. 65, 786 P.2d 395 (1989)(followed)
  • State v. Suarez, 137 Ariz. 368, 670 P.2d 1192 (App. 1983)(followed)
  • State v. Krum, 183 Ariz. 288, 903 P.2d 596 (1995)(followed)
  • State v. Runningeagle, 176 Ariz. 59, 859 P.2d 169 (1993)(followed)
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)(followed)
  • State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540, 707 P.2d 944 (1985)(followed)
  • State v. Valdez, 167 Ariz. 328, 806 P.2d 1376 (1991)(followed)
  • State v. Herrera, 183 Ariz. 642, 905 P.2d 1377 (App. 1995)(followed)
  • Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…