Apelt, et al v. Schriro, et al
Filing
279
ORDER that Petitioner's 277 motion for reconsideration and stay of its Order determining the procedural status of his sentencing claims is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/09/11. (ESL)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Michael Apelt,
10
11
Petitioner,
vs.
12
13
14
15
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.
) No. CV-98-0882-PHX-ROS
)
) DEATH PENALTY CASE
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and stay regarding
17
this Court’s Order determining the procedural status of his sentencing claims. (Doc. 277.)
18
Petitioner presents two arguments. He first argues that at his initial state post-conviction
19
relief (“PCR”) proceeding his counsel operated under such a conflict of interest that the
20
conflict excused counsel’s failure to raise all ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claims
21
at sentencing, as was required. (Id. at 7-8.) Next, he challenges the state court’s application
22
of Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3) precluding his IAC sentencing claims, contending that the
23
court’s application frustrated his ability to exercise his federal rights, thus rendering the rule
24
inadequate to establish procedural default. (Id. at 9-12.)
25
Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented
26
with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
27
manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.
28
No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A
1
motion for reconsideration is not a forum for the moving party to make new arguments not
2
raised in its original briefs, Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equipment, Inc., 841
3
F.2d 918, 925-926 (9th Cir. 1988), nor is it the time to ask the court to “rethink what it has
4
already thought through,” United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz.
5
1998) (quotation omitted).
6
At issue in Petitioner’s first argument is the United States Supreme Court’s recent
7
action granting certiorari in Maples v. Thomas, 131 S. Ct. 1718 (U.S. 2011), on the issue of
8
cause to excuse procedurally defaulted claims in state court. Specifically, the Court agreed
9
to review cause to excuse default where the petitioner was blameless, the State’s own
10
conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner’s attorney of record was no longer
11
functioning as his agent at the time of the default. See Maples v. Allen, No. 10-63, 2010 WL
12
2727329 (U.S. July 9, 2010) (granting petition for certiorari limited to issue number 2).
13
Regarding this argument, however, Petitioner concedes that “[p]reviously, post-
14
conviction counsel’s conflict has not been sufficient cause to excuse procedural default.”
15
(Doc. 277 at 8) (emphasis added.) Petitioner’s appropriately concedes this point; the Court
16
thoroughly addressed and denied this argument in its earlier Order. See Doc. 132 at 21-22.)
17
Even though Petitioner states that Maples may change the legal landscape when issued, that
18
hope is insufficient to constitute an intervening change in controlling law. Therefore, the
19
Court will not reconsider its resolution of this issue.
20
Next, regarding the state court’s application of Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3) precluding
21
his IAC sentencing claims, Petitioner contends the court’s application “frustrated his right
22
to effective assistance of post-conviction counsel.” (Doc. 277 at 9.) The Court has already
23
addressed and denied this argument. (Doc. 132 at 21-24, Doc. 180 at 3-4.) Again, Petitioner
24
relies upon the possibility that the Supreme Court may take up this issue. (See Doc. 277 at
25
11-12.) In Cook v. Ryan, No. 10-9742, 2011 WL 1234018 (April 4, 2011) and in Foster v.
26
Texas, 131 S. Ct. 991 (2011), the Court recently granted stays of execution pending
27
disposition of petitioners’ request for certiorari on the issue of their right to effective
28
assistance of post-conviction counsel during initial post-conviction review proceedings.
-2-
1
However, the hope that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari and conclude that such a right
2
exists is insufficient to constitute an intervening change in controlling law. Therefore, the
3
Court will not reconsider its resolution of this issue.
4
Accordingly,
5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and stay of
6
its Order determining the procedural status of his sentencing claims (Doc. 277) is DENIED.
7
DATED this 9th day of May, 2011.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?