Osterkamp v. Browning

In Osterkamp v. Browning, 226 Ariz. 485,14, 250 P.3d 551, 555 (App. 2011), the Court considered whether, pursuant to Rule 32.4(c)(2), a pleading defendant was entitled to appointment of counsel in a timely filed, second post-conviction proceeding, in order to "investigate and possibly assert a claim that counsel in his first, 'of-right' post-conviction proceeding had rendered ineffective assistance." Osterkamp, 226 Ariz. 485,1, 250 P.3d at 552. In that case, the trial court initially summarily dismissed Osterkamp's second notice of post-conviction relief, apparently finding he had failed to state a claim permitted in a successive or untimely notice, based on limitations imposed by Rule 32.2(b). The court then reinstated the proceeding based on the decision in v. Petty, 225 Ariz. 369,7, 238 P.3d 637, 640 (App. 2010). When the court denied his request for appointed counsel, Osterkamp petitioned for special action relief. Id.