» Post-Conviction » Post-Conviction Remedies

Post-Conviction Remedies

In Arizona, a defendant who pleads guilty cannot file a direct appeal. Instead, his only remedy is filing a Rule 32 Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Most of my clients think that winning a petition for post-conviction relief is always a good thing. Unfortunately, in some cases, people may end up being worse off for having filed a successful petition.

If I file a rule 32 petition arguing that a trial court did not have jurisdiction because the statute of limitations had expired, the case essentially goes away if the court of appeals agrees with me. Similarly, the state likely will not bother with a case if essential evidence is suppressed due to constitutional issues or if a criminal statute is held unconstitutional.

However, a number of clients want to argue their trial counsel was ineffective and that they would not have accepted the plea had it not been for their lawyer’s unprofessional errors. Often, the client signed a plea stipulating to prison time, albeit a lesser sentence than they would have received had they lost at trial.

Let’s say the client’s lawyer did a terrible job. He didn’t file any motions, didn’t conduct any interviews, and didn’t try to negotiate a better plea agreement. He missed deadlines and failed to spot key issues. If he is deemed ineffective, the whole process will basically start over.

If the client gets a better attorney, there is no guarantee that he will win at trial or receive a better plea agreement. He could end up with a much longer prison sentence. That means that whenever someone wants to argue ineffective assistance, they should seriously consider the chances of a better outcome should their requested relief be granted. Sometimes, although it’s a shame someone had a truly ineffective lawyer, I will advise them against filing a rule 32 petition.

Filed under: Post-Conviction · Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

*

 

Articles Comments

Web Design by Actualize Solutions