Whether evidence of a defense attorney's impairment due to substance abuse discovered after the first petition for post-conviction relief was decided is precluded as a successive notice of post-conviction relief as an ineffective assistance of counsel argument under the Sixth Amendment or constitutes newly discovered evidence and is a violation of a defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner’s defense attorney passed away following an overdose of illegal drugs. In Petitioner’s first petition for post-conviction relief, he argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to acts and omissions of the defense attorney. Subsequently, Petitioner discovered evidence of the defense attorney’s substance abuse during his case and filed a successive notice for post-conviction relief. The Arizona courts dismissed the notice and did not permit Petitioner to file a petition for postconviction relief because they found it was a successive claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Arizona law. Whether evidence of a defense attorney’s impairment due to substance abuse discovered after the first petition for post-conviction relief was decided is precluded as a successive notice of post-conviction relief as an ineffective assistance of counsel argument under the Sixth Amendment or constitutes newly discovered evidence and is a violation of a defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.