US Supreme Court, in 5-4 ruling, rejects Arizona's claim of proper state-ground basis to uphold death sentence

In an interesting little ruling in a state capital case, the US Supreme Court this morning in Cruz v. Arizona, No. 21–846 (S. Ct. Feb 22, 2023) (available here), rejected an effort by Arizona to preserve a state death sentence on procedural grounds.  The Court's opinion was authored by Justice Sotomayor and joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson. Here is how the Court's opinion starts and ends:

Petitioner John Montenegro Cruz, a defendant sentenced to death, argued at trial and on direct appeal that his due process rights had been violated by the trial court’s failure to permit him to inform the jury that a life sentence in Arizona would be without parole. See Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 161–162 (1994) (plurality opinion); id., at 178 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Those courts rejected Cruz’s Simmons argument, believing, incorrectly, that Arizona’s sentencing and parole scheme did not trigger application of Simmons. See State v. Cruz, 218 Ariz. 149, 160, 181 P.3d 196, 207 (2008).

After the Arizona Supreme Court repeated that mistake in a series of cases, this Court summarily reversed the Arizona Supreme Court in Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613 (2016) (per curiam), and held that it was fundamental error to conclude that Simmons “did not apply” in Arizona. 578 U.S., at 615.

Relying on Lynch, Cruz filed a motion for state postconviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g). That Rule permits a defendant to bring a successive petition if “there has been a significant change in the law that, if applicable to the defendant’s case, would probably overturn the defendant’s judgment or sentence.” Ariz. Rule Crim. Proc. 32.1(g) (Cum. Supp. 2022); see also ibid. (Cum. Supp. 2017).

The Arizona Supreme Court denied relief after concluding that Lynch was not a “significant change in the law.” 251 Ariz. 203, 207, 487 P. 3d 991, 995 (2021). The Arizona Supreme Court reached this conclusion despite having repeatedly held that an overruling of precedent is a significant change in the law.  See id., at 206, 487 P. 3d, at 994 (The “‘archetype of such a change occurs when an appellate court overrules previously binding case law’”).

The Court granted certiorari to address whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that Lynch was not a significant change in the law for purposes of Rule 32.1(g) is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.  It is not....

In exceptional cases where a state-court judgment rests on a novel and unforeseeable state-court procedural decision lacking fair or substantial support in prior state law, that decision is not adequate to preclude review of a federal question.  The Arizona Supreme Court applied Rule 32.1(g) in a manner that abruptly departed from and directly conflicted with its prior interpretations of that Rule.  Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The  dissent was authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.  It ends this way:

The Court makes a case for why the Arizona Supreme Court’s interpretation of its own precedent is wrong.  If I were on the Arizona Supreme Court, I might agree.  But that call is not within our bailiwick.  Our job is to determine whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision is defensible, and we owe the utmost deference to the state court in making that judgment.  Cases of inadequacy are extremely rare, and this is not one.  I respectfully dissent.