Arizona Supreme Court: State v. Anderson Case N0. CR-23-0008-PR Filed May 2, 2024
ISSUES:
- Whether Anderson’s ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim is untimely
- Whether Anderson’s IAC claim is precluded
- Whether Anderson presents a colorable IAC claim
DECISION:
- Anderson’s IAC claim is not untimely due to the pervasive confusion about parole availability in Arizona at the time of his sentencing.
- Anderson’s IAC claim is not precluded because it represents an extremely rare set of circumstances in the context of the confusion about parole.
- Anderson has presented enough evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing to establish the existence of an offered plea agreement.
Dissent:
Justices Beene and Montgomery dissented, agreeing that the claim is neither untimely nor precluded, but disagreeing with the majority’s analysis of the deficiency prong in Strickland v. Washington.
Synopsis:
This case involves Larry Dean Anderson, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release for 25 years. Anderson filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting that his attorney erroneously advised him about parole eligibility, which caused him to reject an alleged plea offer. The court applied the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington to evaluate the IAC claim.
Outcome of the Case:
The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and the trial court’s order, remanding the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Anderson had been offered a plea agreement before his trial.