When must the court of appeals remand to a court of first instance for application of this Court s intervening decision in Martines v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), to determine whether the ineffective assistance of postconviction relief counsel excuses the procedural default of facts supporting a substantial trial counsel ineffectiveness claim; and,

Whether the Ninth Circuit's denial of Spreitz's request for remand pursuant to Martinez deprived Spreitz of the opportunity to demonstrate cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of facts supporting a substantial ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, where counsel failed to present evidence of the effects of cocaine and cocaethylene intoxication at the time of the crime that significantly impaired Spreitz's "capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law/ a statutory mitigating factor under the Arizona death penalty statute.

When must the court of appeals remand to a court of first instance for application of this Court's intervening decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), to determine whether the ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief counsel excuses the procedural default of facts supporting a substantial trial counsel ineffectiveness claim