Free Additional Attachments to Main Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 74
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118—NVW Document 115-6 Filed O3/28/2007 Page1 of 4

I * _,2
4 SUPEREQR CGEJRT @F TEE STATE GF ARTEZGNA
MARHC®?A CGEJN Ii Y.
STAZTEE UTF ARZLZQNA, )
) Ne. CR 12373.1
}PHa§m®Z§`—Respem@emt, )
>
vs. )
1 ) A
>
STEVEN CRANE JAMES, )
` B
@efemx§em&~?eié€emer. }= {Ass@e@ te 152*.2.e Heeerebée
) Qheryfi K. Hendrix)

A
FE E E 5 EQN FUR j
— j
Demumés C. Jmmes _ ¥
, 'ifwe Renaissance Square
@@3 Nemth Cezmrai, Suite 16%
Fheemix, Amizem ESQQ-€¤—4-@39
` Telephemes (6192) 5'53-91’1¤5H
Facsimile: (15192) $@7-5353 1
Sesame Ear @12-* 5397
Atfzemey fer Hl>eiemdemi—?e€iuieme?
Case 2·OO—cv—O1118—NVW D0cumen1 115-6 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 2 014

issues that cannot he fully developed until the conclusion oi` the direct appeal .... We
continue to commend Rule 32 process to resolve claiins of uiefective of
A counsel? Krone v. Hotham, 181 364, 366, 390 P. 2d 1149, 1151 (1995)(in banc).
There is simply no question Pennoner raised his IAC clann a timely and
appropriate manner. Unfortunately, the trial »court’s erroneous ruling in 1985 has
precluded every court from considering the claim on the merits since then. ln refusing to
consider the IAC claini on the merits in this third Petition for Post-Conviction Relief;
Judge Hendrix highlighted the e§ect of the initial Ending of procedural default:
_` "l’etitioner asserts the judge rnade a wrong decision in ruling on the Erst petition for post-
9 convictionlrelief, and thus, this court was wrong when it found preclusion in the second
petition. To the extent that ine claims were precluded in the petition, they were
precluded in the second and are precluded now in the third petition. lt is the role of
appellate courts to review the rulings of the nial courts and to rectiiy errors made by the
trial CO1,lI'lS.” (App. F). l ‘
Rather than perpetuate the unwarranted of procedural default made in ‘ _;/.
1985, Petitioner respectfully requests this Court to correct the error and allow him the
evidentiary hearing he deserves. This is not an issue that has been "Enally adjudicated on
the rnerits" in any proceeding, nor has it been "waived at trial, on appeal, or in any
previous collateral proceeding? See Rule 32.2(a)(2) and (3), Ariz.R.Criin.P.
Accordingly, the trial court erred in Ending that post-conviction rehef was precluded in
this case. »
1.6 _
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118-NVW Document 115-6 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 3 of 4 A

Respectfully submitted day of August, 1999.
Dennis C. Jones, #589’,§`9
335 East Palm Lane
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Attorney for Defendant-Fetiiioner
tj .5 Aé?
/~/gg; ébf
Gary wenthal, #330003
1029 South Maple Arvenue
Tempe.
Atxomey for Defendant-Petitioner
Copy of the t`ore¤oing mailed
delivered this day of
August, 1999 to:
The Honorable Cheryl K. Hendrix
Judge ofthe Superior Court ·
(mailed/faxed/delixzered)
JackRobe1ts W
Assistant Attorney General
1275 West Jeierson
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 _
(mailed/faxed/delivered) A, ~ _
By
1. 8
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118-NVW Document 115-6 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-6

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-6

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-6

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-6

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 4