Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0373 PRPC
01-27-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. SANJAY BABULA GOHEL, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Sanjay Babula Gohel, Buckeye Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR1997-014793
The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Sanjay Babula Gohel, Buckeye
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judges Donn Kessler and Kent E. Cattani joined.
THOMPSON, Judge
¶1 Petitioner Sanjay Babula Gohel petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 A jury convicted Gohel of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to natural life for first degree murder and life with a possibility of parole after twenty-five years for conspiracy to commit first degree murder. We affirmed his convictions and sentences as modified on direct appeal. State v. Gohel, 1 CA-CR 01-1011 (Ariz. App. Mar. 27, 2003) (mem. decision). Gohel now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).
¶3 Gohel argues the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), constitutes a significant change in the law that allows him to raise an untimely claim of ineffective assistance of his first post-conviction relief counsel. The trial court dismissed Gohel's first petition for post-conviction relief in 2007.
¶4 We deny relief. Martinez held, "Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective." Martinez, 132 S.Ct. at 1320. This simply means Gohel can seek habeas corpus relief in federal court based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel if he can first show either he had no counsel in his first post-conviction relief proceeding or counsel in his first post-conviction relief proceeding was ineffective. Martinez does not require a state court to consider all untimely claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in post-conviction proceedings.
¶5 We grant review and deny relief.