District of Arizona  
line decor
line decor
Capital Habeas Cases 2006
--December 20, 2006--Spencer v. Schriro--The district court denied habeas corpus relief. Order.
--November 28, 2006--Milke v. Schriro--The district court denied habeas corpus relief. Order.
--November 22, 2006--Anderson v. Schriro--In Anderson, the Arizona Supreme Court issued the mandate on direct appeal but did not appointed post-conviction counsel or issued the notice of post-conviction relief. There was concern that Anderson's federal statute of limitations was running, and about to expire, even though his post-conviction proceedings did not begin. Anderson filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, a motion to hold the habeas proceedings in abeyance, and a motion for appointment of federal habeas counsel. The district court denied Anderson's motion for appointment of counsel, but ordered the state to respond to his stay and abeyance motion and to address an additional question of equitable tolling. Order
--October 2, 2006--Correll v. Ryan--the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's finding that counsel was not ineffective at sentencing. The case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. Opinion
--September 29, 2006--Schad v. Schriro--the district court denies habeas relief. Order
-September 29, 2006--Stanley v. Schriro--the district court denies habeas relief. Order
--July 10--Viva Leroy Nash v. Schriro--The district court denied habeas corpus relief. Order
--June 22--Eric John King v. Schriro--The district court denied habeas corpus relief. Order
--May 24--The Arizona Supreme Court held that the trial court properly relied on the reports of psychological experts to find that Defendants Rudi and Michael Apelt were entitled to a statutory reputable presumption that they are mentally retarded. The supreme court also held that the trial court improperly ruled that evidence of a defendant's adaptive behavior after the age of eighteen is irrelevant to a determination of mental retardation. Although other bases might exist for precluding such evidence, the mere fact that the evidence concerns adaptive behavior exhibited after the age of eighteen does not render it irrelevant. Opinion
--March 28--Ronald Williams v. Stewart--Denial of a petition for habeas relief challenging a conviction and death sentence for first degree murder and armed burglary is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) admission of evidence; 2) prosecutorial misconduct; 3) judicial misconduct; 4) jury selection; 5) denial of funds to defendant for attendance of various out-of-state witnesses; 6) ineffective assistance of counsel; 7) denial of expert witness assistance for defense; 8) sufficiency of the evidence; and 9) errors during sentencing. Opinion.
--March 21, 2006--State v. The Honorable Silvia Arellano. The Arizona Supreme Court accepted special action jurisdiction over a petition filed by the state of Arizona in the cases of Rudi and Michael Apelt. Post-conviction Atkins claims were filed in each case and the state is challenging the superior court ruling. Order, Petition, Response, Reply ,"AAMR Amicus Brief", Apelts supp brief, State's supp brief.


850 W. Adams Street
Suite 201
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2730
Telephone :602-382-2700
407 W. Congress Street
Suite 501
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1310
Telephone :520-879-7500
2285 S. 4th. Avenue
Suite 2E
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Telephone :928-314-1780
123 N. San Francisco Street
Suite 204
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Telephone :928-213-1942
Salt Lake City
46 West Broadway
Suite 110
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone :801-524-6043