Stewart v. Smith

Background

A man convicted in 1982 of first-degree murder, kidnaping, and sexual assault and sentenced to death sought federal review after state postconviction efforts failed. He argued that his trial and appellate lawyers were ineffective for not challenging certain trial errors. In 1995 he raised those ineffective-assistance claims in Arizona Rule 32 proceedings, but the Pima County Superior Court found the claims waived under Arizona Rule 32.2(a)(3) because they were not raised earlier. The state court also rejected his contention that public defenders refused to press the claims due to an office conflict with his trial lawyer.

Reasoning

On federal habeas review, the District Court treated the state court’s procedural ruling as barring federal review, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Arizona’s waiver rule might require looking at the merits of a claim before finding it waived. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Ninth Circuit correctly interpreted Arizona law. Because resolution of the federal question depends on how Arizona law applied in 1995, the Court certified a focused question to the Arizona Supreme Court about whether the “sufficient constitutional magnitude” inquiry required consideration of a claim’s merits or only the type of right alleged.

Real world impact

The Court has paused further action and asked the Arizona Supreme Court to answer the certified question. That answer will determine whether federal courts may now review the inmate’s ineffective-assistance claims. This decision is procedural and does not resolve the merits of the underlying guilt or sentencing claims.