State of Arizona v. Michael Eugene Traverso

Summary

The court held that a successive ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s grossly inadequate communication of a plea offer is not automatically precluded and falls within the exception for constitutional rights requiring the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and personal waiver. Because the claim concerned the defendant’s ability to make the fundamental decisions to plead guilty and waive a jury trial, the prior omission by post-conviction counsel did not preclude it. The court also held that Traverso adequately explained his untimely notice of post-conviction relief, affirmed the superior court’s rulings, vacated part of the court of appeals’ opinion, and remanded for consideration of unresolved issues.