Page:Cruz v. Arizona (2023).pdf/12

Rh Instead of reaching that conclusion, however, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Lynch was not “a significant change in the law.” 251 Ariz., at 207, 487 P. 3d, at 995. It reasoned that Lynch could not be a significant change because Lynch relied on Simmons, and Simmons “was clearly established at the time of Cruz’s trial … despite the misapplication of that law by the Arizona courts.” 251 Ariz., at 206, 487 P. 3d, at 994. The court added that it was not enough that Lynch changed how Arizona courts applied federal law because “Rule 32.1(g) requires a significant change in the law … not a significant change in the application of the law.” 251 Ariz., at 207, 487 P. 3d, at 995 (emphasis in original).

This interpretation of Rule 32.1(g) is entirely new and in conflict with prior Arizona case law. The State points to no other instance in which the overturning of binding Arizona precedent failed to satisfy Rule 32.1(g)’s “significant change in the law” requirement. Nor has the State identified any other Rule 32.1(g) decision distinguishing between a “change in the law” and a “change in the application of the law.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). The application of Rule 32.1(g) below is thus the opposite of firmly established and regularly followed.

What makes the interpretation so novel is the way in which it disregards the effect of Lynch on the law in Arizona. Ordinarily, Arizona courts applying Rule 32.1(g) focus on how a decision changes the law that is operative in Arizona, regardless of whether the intervening decision is a state or federal one. See, e.g., Shrum, 220 Ariz., at 119, 203 P. 3d, at 1179 (holding that a state decision did not satisfy Rule 32.1(g) because it did not “overrule any prior opinion”); State v. Valencia, 241 Ariz. 206, 208–209, 386 P. 3d 392, 394–395 (2016) (finding a “significant change in the law” where a precedent of this Court changed the law applied in Arizona); State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 540, 260 P. 3d 1102, 1105 (App. 2011) (same); see also State v. Bigger, 251