State of Arizona v. Ramon Escareno Meraz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding there is no constitutional right to counsel in post- conviction proceedings for non-pleading defendants
• holding there is no constitutional right to counsel in post- conviction proceedings for non-pleading defendants
• holding the Supreme Court “limited its decision” in Martinez “to the application of procedural default in federal habeas review”; accordingly, it does not affect consideration of state claims brought under Rule 32
• rejecting argument that Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) requires otherwise
• “Non-pleading defendants . . . have no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings . . . [and] a claim that Rule 32 counsel was ineffective is not a cognizable ground for relief in a subsequent Rule 32 proceeding.”
• the Martinez Court “limited its decision to the application of procedural default in federal habeas review” and did not “alter established Arizona law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).