Whether this Court's decision in Lynch applied a settled rule of federal law that must be applied to cases pending on collateral review in Arizona

QUESTION PRESENTED In Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), this Court held that in cases where a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, due process entitles the defendant to inform the jury that he will be ineligible for parole if not sentenced to death. For many years thereafter, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to apply Simmons. In Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613 (2016) (per curiam), this Court summarily reversed the Arizona Supreme Court’s misapplication of Simmons and confirmed that the Simmons rule applies in Arizona. This joint petition is brought by six capital defendants in Arizona whose convictions became final after Simmons but before Lynch. Petitioners were sentenced to death after being denied their right under Simmons to inform the jury that they were parole-ineligible. After this Court in Lynch applied Simmons to Arizona, all six petitioners sought postconviction relief in state court seeking the relief that Simmons and Lynch require. Relying on its decision in State v. Cruz, 487 P.3d 991 (Ariz. 2021), the Arizona Supreme Court denied review in all six cases. This joint petition presents the same question presented in the pending certiorari petition in Cruz v. Arizona (petition filed Nov. 22, 2021): Whether this Court’s decision in Lynch applied a settled rule of federal law that must be applied to cases pending on collateral review in Arizona. (i)