Cited by

¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).

Indeed, the State bears both “an ethical and [a] constitutional obligation to disclose clearly exculpatory material that comes to its attention after [] sentencing has occurred.” Canion v. Cole (Canion II), ¶ 8 (2005).

¶12 Discovery in PCR proceedings for a defendant convicted at a trial is governed by Rule 32.6, ¶ 10 (2005).

¶ 11 (2005) (citing cases).

P. 33.2(a)(1); -600 ¶¶ 7, 9 (2005) (finding post-conviction relief rules provide no process for obtaining discovery and impose no disclosure obligations).

¶ 11 (2005) (citing cases).

P. 32.1 (enumerating the grounds for PCR relief); ¶ 12 (2005) (requiring the PCR petitioner to raise “grounds that bring him within the provisions of [Rule 32]”) ().

¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).

¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).

But Arizona’s Supreme Court has previously found that Rule 32 “adopts a liberal policy toward amendment of PCR pleadings.” ¶ 16 (2005).

A. “Good Cause” for Discovery under Rule 32.6(b)(2) ¶18 ¶ 10 (2005), we stated PCR courts have “inherent authority to grant discovery requests in PCR proceedings upon a showing of good cause.” Later, we promulgated Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.6(b)(2) (effective Jan.

¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).

¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).

¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).

1 Rule 32.5(a) states that a petition “must include a memorandum that contains citations to relevant portions of the record.” “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).

¶ 11 (2005) (citation omitted).

The State further argues reconstruction is necessary to complete the record for reference 5 While Rule 15 applies to the trial stage, not to post-conviction relief proceedings, ¶ 9 (2005), we nevertheless find the reciprocal-right-of-discovery rationale applicable.

P. 32.9(c)(4)(B)(iii), (iv) (requiring petitions for review to contain citations to the record and legal authority); ¶ 11 (2005) (petitioner must "strictly comply" with Rule 32 to be entitled to relief).

P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (a petition must state “the issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”); n.4, ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (declining to address an argument not presented in petition).1 ¶7 “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).

“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).

¶ 11 (2005) (citation omitted).

Rule 32 of our criminal procedure rules “outline[s] the process by which a convicted defendant may obtain post-conviction relief.” ¶ 5 (2005).