Whether the Arizona Supreme Court's denial of postconviction relief violated the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial in a capital case

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of the Rules of this Court, Applicant Michael Jonathon Carlson requests a 60-day extension of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari, up to and including Friday, March 17, 2024. JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The judgment for which review is sought is the Arizona Supreme Court’s denial of postconviction relief in State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson, No. CR-220157-PC (October 17, 2023). Attachment A. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the decision in State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathan Carlson, No. CR-20093544 (August 21, 2021). Attachment B. JURISDICTION This Court will have jurisdiction over any timely filed petition for writ of certiorari in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). Under Rules 13.1, 13.3, and 30.1 of the Rules of this Court, a petition for writ of certiorari is due to be filed on or before January 16, 2024. In accordance with Rule 13.5, this application is being filed more than 10 days in advance of the filing date for the petition for a writ of certiorari. REASONS JUSTIFYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME Applicant respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in this case, up to and including March 17, 2024. The requested extension is 2 made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay. Indeed, the requested extension is made because of the vital importance associated with the issues at hand — the right to a fair and reliable trial. This Court has emphasized that “our duty to search for constitutional error with painstaking care is never more exacting than it is ina capital case.” Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 785 (1987). It is respectfully submitted that counsel’s duty to present all authorized claims of constitutional error with care is of equal significance. Thus, it is important that counsel be granted additional time to prepare Mr. Carlson’s petition with the care demanded of such cases. Both counsel undersigned are solo practitioners with one part-time legal assistant between them. Other obligations, including on behalf of Mr. Carlson, have precluded counsel from being able to direct adequate time and attention to the preparation of a petition for writ of certiorari on Petitioner’s behalf. Specifically, counsel filed a successive petition for postconviction relief for Mr. Carlson on September 1, 2023. The State responded on October 12, 2023, five days before the Arizona Supreme Court issued its order in this matter. Since then, counsel have spent considerable time preparing the reply to the successive petition, which was filed in the trial court on December 15, 2023. Additionally, since the Arizona Supreme Court’s order, Mr. Cooper prepared for a first-degree murder trial, which resolved just ten days before trial was set to begin on November 30 (State of Arizona v. Christopher, Pima County Superior Court case no. CR2020-4747). This was in addition to other demands of his caseload, which include another first-degree murder trial scheduled to start on February 13 (State of Arizona v. Aguilar, Pima County Superior Court case no. CR2022-1602) and a federal 3 terrorism trial, with co-counsel Krauss, in which jury selection is scheduled to begin on April 16, 2024 (USA v. Hussein, District of Arizona case no. CR19-02162). Ms. Krauss, similarly, filed a Motion to Remand in the Ninth Circuit on November 8 (USA v. Coleman, Ninth Circuit case no. 23-770), appeared for oral argument before the Ninth Circuit on December 8 (USA v. Eklund, Ninth Circuit case no. 21-30240), and filed a motion for a reduction of sentence in the District Court for the District of Alaska on December 13, 2023 (USA v. Eklund, Ninth Circuit case no. CR-18-00035). A 60-day extension for Applicant Mr. Carlson would allow undersigned counsel th