HOUSE BILL REPORT

SHB 1071

As Amended by the Senate

BYHouse Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives H. Myers, Padden, Nealey, Patrick, Wolfe, Wood, P. King and Crane)

Regarding collateral attacks on convictions.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (17)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Belcher, Brough, Dellwo, Hargrove, Inslee, P. King, R. Meyers, Moyer, H. Myers, Patrick, Schmidt, Scott, Tate and Van Luven.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (2)

      Signed by Representatives Locke and Wineberry.

House Staff:Pat Shelledy (786-7149)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 2, 1989

BACKGROUND:

After a defendant is convicted of a crime, the defendant may appeal the conviction directly to the appellate court if the defendant did not plead guilty and waive the right to an appeal. Court rule requires the defendant to file a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of the judgment and sentence or the defendant waives the right of appeal.

In addition to direct appeals, the Constitution, statutes and court rules allow convicted defendants to challenge a judgment by a collateral attack.  One mechanism of collateral attack is the writ of habeas corpus which a defendant may pursue by filing a "personal restraint" petition. Defendants may also move to withdraw guilty pleas, move for a new trial, and move to vacate a judgment.

Court rules establish the grounds for challenging a conviction through a personal restraint petition.  Those grounds include the following: (1) the convicting court lacked jurisdiction, (2) the conviction violated the state or federal constitution; (3) material facts exist, not disclosed at trial, which in the interest of justice require the petitioner's release; (4) there are sufficient reasons to retroactively apply a post conviction change in the law; (5) there are "other grounds" for a collateral attack on the conviction; (6) the conditions or manner of the petitioner's restraint violate the state or federal constitution; or "other grounds" exist to challenge the legality of the detention.

Current law imposes no time limit on filing a personal restraint petition. Also, no limits exist on the number of petitions a petitioner may file as long as different grounds are asserted each time.

SUMMARY:

This will requires a petitioner to file a collateral appeal within one year of final judgment.  The time limit would not apply to certain grounds for the petition.  Those grounds are as follows:  (1) newly discovered evidence if the defendant acted with reasonable diligence in discovering the evidence; (2) the statute the defendant was convicted under is unconstitutional on its face; (3) the conviction is barred by double jeopardy; (4) the defendant pled not guilty and the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict; (5) the sentence imposed was in excess of the court's jurisdiction; or (6) a significant change in the law material to the conviction should be applied retroactively.

Defendants and incarcerated persons will receive notice of the time limit and exceptions.  A one-year "grandfather" provision is included.  Additionally, the petitioner must certify that the basis for the petition is not repetitive of prior petitions.  If the petitioner has filed prior petitions, the person must show good cause why the person did not raise the basis for relief in the previous petition.  The court of appeals will dismiss on its own motion petitions that are repetitive, frivolous, or that fail to show good cause why the relief was not requested in previous petitions.

EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENTS:  The ground for relief that a significant change in the law warrants retroactive application is amended to require that the Legislature must expressly apply the change retroactively or a court find that it should be applied retroactively.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 2, 1989.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Seth Dawson, Snohomish County Prosecutor; David Bruneau, Clallam County Prosecutor; Mike Sullivan, Pacific County Prosecutor; Chris Quinn-Brintnall, Pierce County Prosecutor; Seth Fine, Snohomish County Prosecutor.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Bob Stalker, Evergreen Legal Services; Kern Cleven, WACDL.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Offenders who have already exhausted or ignored their appellate rights can repeatedly file an unlimited number of petitions years after conviction.  The lack of reasonable limits places unreasonable burdens on the state to respond to the petitions and prove cases years later if the petition is granted.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The large influx of petitions in recent years is due to the SRA.  Those petitions are nearly through the system so this bill is unnecessary.  A one-year time limit unconstitutionally restricts habeas corpus rights.

VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      Yeas 74; Nays 20; Absent 2; Excused 2

Voting Nay: Representatives Anderson, Appelwick, Braddock, Brekke, Cole, R. Fisher, Fraser, Heavey, Jacobsen, R. King, Leonard, Nelson, Nutley, O'Brien, Phillips, Prentice, Raiter, Rust, Wang and Wineberry

Absent:     Representatives Gallagher and Locke

Excused:    Representatives Bristow and Schoon