Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FILED: 08/12/2010
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS RUTH WILLINGHAM,
STATE OF ARIZONA ACTING CLERK
BY: GH
DIVISION ONE
1
Law Office of David A. Powell PLC Chandler
By David A. Powell
B R O W N, Judge
BACKGROUND
(2010).
JURISDICTION
Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a); see also State ex rel. Pennartz v.
Olcavage, 200 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 8, 30 P.3d 649, 652 (App. 2001).
3
(2010); Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 2(a)(2). We accept jurisdiction
DISCUSSION
4
likewise rested its determination of the need for an ex parte
. . .
1
Whether Petitioners have the right to receive copies of
court filings related to mitigation matters is not an issue
before us.
2
As provided in A.R.S. § 13-4401(7), a criminal proceeding
5
follow and apply the plain language of the Victims’ Bill of
Superior Court, 184 Ariz. 409, 411, 909 P.2d 476, 478 (App.
Defendant has not cited, nor has our research revealed, any
Ariz. 349, 861 P.2d 634 (1993). In that case, the defendant was
6
prosecution. Id. at 364-65, 861 P.2d at 649-50. The trial
court denied the request, noting there was no authority for such
State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (holding
3
Similar reasoning applies here. Under Rule 15.2(h)(1)(a),
within 180 days after receiving the state’s disclosure, defense
counsel in a capital case is required to disclose “[a] list of
all mitigating circumstances intended to be proved.” Thus,
Defendant’s suggestion that he has an unqualified right to
confidentiality relating to mitigation matters lacks supporting
legal authority.
7
publicly-funded expert witness assistance ex parte); Ex Parte
Moody, 684 So.2d 114, 120 (Ala. 1996) (holding that indigent
8
purposes. 4 In light of the broad disclosure requirements of Rule
Defendant’s assertions.
10, 161 P.3d 596, 601 (App. 2007) (noting that even when a
4
Defendant cites American Bar Association Guidelines for the
Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty
Cases (2003), Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), and
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which support
defense counsel’s obligation to investigate all potentially
mitigating evidence. But he offers no authority for the
proposition that the reasonable exercise of such a duty equates
to a right to ex parte proceedings absent additional
justification for such a request.
9
of those competing interests); State ex rel. Romley v. Superior
Court (Roper), 172 Ariz. 232, 236, 836 P.2d 445, 449 (App. 1992)
Connor, 215 Ariz. at 558, ¶ 11, 161 P.3d at 601 (concluding that
constitutional rights.
10
CONCLUSION
/s/
__________________________________
MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/
_________________________________
DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge
/s/
_________________________________
PHILIP HALL, Judge
11