Cited by

STATE v. BUTTON Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a petition for post- conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶6 We review the dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

A court’s analysis of counsel’s strategy is “highly deferential,” and a “fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight.” ¶ 11 (2021) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689).

We review for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

A PCR claim “is subject to summary dismissal ‘[i]f the alleged facts would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence.’” ¶ 9 (2021) ( ¶ 11 (2016)).

P. 33.4(b)(3)(D) (“The court must excuse an untimely notice requesting post-conviction relief filed under [Rule 33.1(a)] if the defendant adequately explains why the failure to timely file a notice was not the defendant’s fault.”); ¶ 37 (2021) (Rule 32.4(b)(3)(D)’s exception overrides the normal filing time limits.).

DISCUSSION ¶8 We review the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief “for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

rather than self-defense”); ¶ 12 (2021) (“[M]atters of trial strategy and tactics are committed to defense counsel’s judgment and generally cannot serve as the basis for an IAC claim.”) (cleaned up); (“Defense counsel’s determinations of trial strategy, even if later proven unsuccessful, are not inef

¶17 The state argues, however, that § 13-4504 was “combined” with § 13-4503 “into Rule 11.2 in 2017.” It contends the rule therefore “clarifies that, procedurally, the dismissal provisions of [§] 13-4504 apply after reasonable grounds to question competency to stand trial have been found.” ¶¶ 35-37 (2021), it argues the rule must control.

We review the summary dismissal of a PCR proceeding for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶9 A defendant proves IAC by showing both “that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced thereby.” ¶ 8 (2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)).

A defendant establishes an IAC claim by showing both “that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced thereby.” ¶ 8 (2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687– 88 (1984)).

As a result, this court analyzes Williams’ claim under Rule 33.1(g).2 ¶6 Rule 33 “does not define ‘a significant change in the law.’ But plainly a ‘change in the law’ requires some transformative event, a ‘clear break from the past.’” ¶ 15 (2009) (); ¶ 28 (2021); ¶ 13 (2021); cf. Slemmer, 170 Ariz. at 182 (“a significant change in the law” is “a ‘sharp break’ with the past”).

¶5 We review the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs if the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

defendant must show “there has been a significant change in the law that, if applicable to the defendant’s case, would probably overturn the defendant’s judgment or sentence.” The defendant’s showing has three components: (1) there has been a change in the law that constitutes a “clear break from the past,” such as “when an appellate court overrules previously binding case law,” ¶ 28 (2021) (citations and internal quotation 5 STATE v. LOWERY Decision of the Court marks omitted); (2) the change a