State v. Pruett

In State v. Pruett, 185 Ariz. 128, 130, 912 P.2d 1357, 1359 (App. 1995), the Court examined the nature of the pleading defendant's rights to review and counsel and how Rule 32 serves as the procedural conduit for the defendant's exercise of these rights. The pleading defendant's second and third notices of post-conviction relief had been summarily dismissed because they were untimely filed. 185 Ariz. at 130, 912 P.2d at 1359. On review, the court addressed whether the defendant was entitled to assert in a second post-conviction proceeding the ineffectiveness of counsel who had represented him in the first proceeding. Id. at 130-31, 912 P.2d at 1359-60. Observing that the right to effective representation arises out of principles of due process and equal protection, the court noted that this right "only 'extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.'" Id. at 130, 912 P.2d at 1359. Because the pleading defendant's only means of obtaining appellate review is through a Rule 32 proceeding, the court reasoned, he "is constitutionally entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on his first of-right petition for post-conviction relief, the counterpart of a direct appeal." Pruett, 185 Ariz. at 131, 912 P.2d at 1360. Thus, the pleading defendant must be given the "opportunity to assert a claim" of ineffective assistance of initial Rule 32 counsel; "the obvious method is by means of a second petition for post-conviction relief." Id.