The Arizona Supreme Court delivered a mixed ruling Tuesday in State of Arizona v. Michael Eugene Traverso, affirming the trial court's decision while partially vacating an intermediate appellate court ruling and remanding portions of the case for further consideration.
The case, filed as No. CR-23-0264-PR and decided Sept. 23, 2025, originated from a 2006 criminal proceeding in Maricopa County Superior Court before Judge Katherine Cooper. The Supreme Court's decision affects both the original trial court ruling and a 2023 opinion from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.
Justice Montgomery authored the unanimous opinion, joined by Chief Justice Timmer, Vice Chief Justice Lopez, and Justices Bolick, Beene, King, and retired Justice Pelander. The court's ruling addresses post-conviction relief procedures under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1, specifically relating to ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
According to the court's opinion, criminal defendants convicted and sentenced after trial may file notices requesting post-conviction relief under Rule 32.1. The court clarified that defendants seeking relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims must proceed under Rule 32.1(a), which permits relief when "the defendant's conviction was obtained, or the sentence was imposed, in violation of the United States or Arizona constitutions."
The case drew significant attention from criminal justice advocacy organizations. Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the Federal Public Defender for the District of Arizona filed amicus curiae briefs supporting Traverso's position. The organizations were represented by Federal Public Defender Jon M. Sands and Assistant Federal Public Defender Keith J. Hilzendeger.
Traverso was represented by a team from Beus O'Connor McGroder, PLLC, including attorney Lori L. Voepel, and Randal McDonald from the Law Office of Randal B. McDonald. McDonald argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner.
The state's position was defended by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, led by County Attorney Rachel H. Mitchell. Deputy County Attorney Philip D. Garrow, who serves as Appeals Bureau Chief, argued the case for the state.
The Supreme Court's decision to affirm the Superior Court while partially vacating the Court of Appeals ruling suggests the intermediate court may have exceeded appropriate bounds in its 2023 decision. The remand indicates the Supreme Court identified specific issues requiring further consideration by the lower appellate court.
The 2020 amendment to Rule 32.1(a) clarified that the provision "encompasses most traditional post-conviction claims, such as the denial of counsel, incompetent or ineffective counsel, or violations of other rights based on the United States or Arizona constitutions." This language provides the framework under which Traverso's claims were evaluated.
Post-conviction relief serves as a critical safety net in the criminal justice system, allowing defendants to challenge convictions or sentences based on constitutional violations that may not have been apparent during the original trial proceedings. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims represent one of the most common grounds for such relief.
The court's opinion references State v. Goldin, indicating the decision builds upon existing precedent regarding post-conviction relief procedures. The citation suggests the court was establishing or clarifying standards for how such claims should be processed through the Arizona court system.
The involvement of criminal justice advocacy groups as amici curiae underscores the broader implications of the case for post-conviction relief procedures statewide. Such organizations typically file briefs in cases that could establish important precedents affecting numerous defendants seeking similar relief.
The nearly 20-year timeline from the original 2006 proceeding to the 2025 Supreme Court decision illustrates the complex and often lengthy nature of post-conviction relief litigation. Such cases frequently involve multiple rounds of appeals and procedural challenges before reaching final resolution.
The partial vacation and remand suggest the Supreme Court identified specific legal or procedural errors in the Court of Appeals' handling of certain aspects of the case, while finding other portions of the lower court proceedings appropriate to affirm.
This decision will likely influence how Arizona courts handle similar post-conviction relief claims going forward, particularly those involving ineffective assistance of counsel allegations. The clarification of Rule 32.1(a) procedures provides guidance for both defense attorneys and prosecutors in future cases.
The case demonstrates the ongoing evolution of post-conviction relief jurisprudence in Arizona and the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring constitutional protections remain available to criminal defendants even after conviction and sentencing.