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

EXHIBIT 73
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118—NVW Document 115-5 Filed O3/28/2007 Page1 of 3

I
1 DENNIS C. JONES
33SEu1Px1¤l4¤¢
2 P ,A.I'i¤I·\g5u}‘
3 s¤¤¤m¤-m: 5897
Mauve Petitioner
4
5
6
7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
S .
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
9
STATE OF ARIZONA, )
10 ) No. CR 123711
‘ Respondent, )
11 ) REPLY TO RESPONSE
vs. ) TO PETITION FOR
12 ) POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
)
13 STEVEN CRAIG JAMES, )
) (Assigned to the Honorable
-14 Petitioner. ) Cheryl K. Hendrix)
. )
15 _ _
Steven Craig James submits his Reply to the State’s Response
16
to the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to Rule 32,
1'7
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, based upon the attached
18
Memorandum.
E9 _ _ 261
Respectfully submitted this day of March, 1996.
20
DENNIS C. JONES
21
23 BY _
Dennis C. Joneg
Qéi 335 East Palm Lane y
Phoenix, Arizona 85004 1
25 Attorney for Petitioner I
Il
za]! E
27 I 1
23 l
CaseU2:OO—cv—O1118—NVW Document 115-5 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 2 of3

1 The fallacy of the State's argument can be illustrated by an
2 examination of what would occur if Petitioner had not raised an
3 ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in the present
4 petition, but instead waited until subsequent habeas corpus
5 proceedings in federal court to challenge Judge Moeller’s 1985
6 preclusion ruling for the first time. If the federal court were to (E
1
7 agree with Petitioner’s contention that Judge Moeller’s 1985 Q
S preclusion ruling was contrary to an overwhelming body of caselaw X l
9 in Arizona state courts, the federal court would conduct its own ggé
1 J?
10 evidentiary hearing on the merits of the claim.” By raising the Eg?
{ u I
EE?
11 issue in the present proceeding, Petitioner gives this Court —— ggk
12 instead of a federal court —— the opportunity to conduct a hearing ii;
lgg
13 to consider the merits of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of ;c@
I4 counsel claim. Petitioner strongly urges this Court to exercise j
15 its jurisdiction prudently to hear the merits of the claim, rather
16 than turn the matter over to the federal court. See State v. V
17 Carriger, 132 Ariz. 301, 305, 645 P.2d 816, 820 (1982) ("one of the
ES purposes of Rule 32 is to provide a record by which the defendant’s
19 """""‘""—""‘"‘
N Even though federal courts normally refuse to review state
20 court rulings on federal claims when the state court has decided
the matter on the basis of a state procedural rule (such as a
21 criminal defendant’s procedural default in not raising a federal
constitutional claim in a timely manner), a federal court will
22 consider the merits of a claim if it concludes that the state
procedural rule asserted to bar the claim is not "strictly or
23 regularly followed." See Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255, 262-65
I (1982); Bouie v. Citv of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 354·55 (1964);
Zi NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Flowers, 377 U.S. 288, 295=300 (1963). If'
_¤ a state procedural rule that precludes the presentation. of a
2a federal claim in state court is not "strictly or regularly
{ enforced," it will not be considered an "adeguate" state ground!
25; that may serve to bar federal review. §ar;_yl_Qi;x_gf_QQlumbia,I
r? 1378 U.S. 146, 149 (1964).
Z .
28 { C: \w;\Ja=es\PleadLng\Petition . Rpl 8 I
CasH 2:OO—cv-01118-NVW Document 115-5 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 3 of 3 l

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-5

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-5

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-5

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 3