SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1071


                                                           AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE


                                                                            C 395 L 89



State of Washington                               51st Legislature                              1989 Regular Session


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



Read first time 2/8/89.



AN ACT Relating to criminal procedure; amending RCW 7.36.130; adding new sections to chapter 10.73 RCW; and creating new sections.




          NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1.     (1) No petition or motion for collateral attack on a judgment and sentence in a criminal case may be filed more than one year after the judgment becomes final if the judgment and sentence is valid on its face and was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

          (2) For the purposes of this section, "collateral attack" means any form of postconviction relief other than a direct appeal.  "Collateral attack" includes, but is not limited to, a personal restraint petition, a habeas corpus petition, a motion to vacate judgment, a motion to withdraw guilty plea, a motion for a new trial, and a motion to arrest judgment.

          (3) For the purposes of this section, a judgment becomes final on the last of the following dates:

          (a) The date it is filed with the clerk of the trial court;

          (b) The date that an appellate court issues its mandate disposing of a timely direct appeal from the conviction; or

          (c) The date that the United States Supreme Court denies a timely petition for certiorari to review a decision affirming the conviction on direct appeal.  The filing of a motion to reconsider denial of certiorari does not prevent a judgment from becoming final.


          NEW SECTION.  Sec. 2.     The time limit specified in section 1 of this act does not apply to a petition or motion that is based solely on one or more of the following grounds:

          (1) Newly discovered evidence, if the defendant acted with reasonable diligence in discovering the evidence and filing the petition or motion;

          (2) The statute that the defendant was convicted of violating was unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the defendant's conduct;

          (3) The conviction was barred by double jeopardy under Amendment V of the United States Constitution or Article I, section 9 of the state Constitution;

          (4) The defendant pled not guilty and the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the conviction;

          (5) The sentence imposed was in excess of the court's jurisdiction; or

          (6) There has been a significant change in the law, whether substantive or procedural, which is material to the conviction, sentence, or other order entered in a criminal or civil proceeding instituted by the state or local government, and either the legislature has expressly provided that the change in the law is to be applied retroactively, or a court, in interpreting a change in the law that lacks express legislative intent regarding retroactive application, determines that sufficient reasons exist to require retroactive application of the changed legal standard.


        Sec. 3.  Section 445, page 213, Laws of 1854 as last amended by section 3, chapter 256, Laws of 1947 and RCW 7.36.130 are each amended to read as follows:

          No court or judge shall inquire into the legality of any judgment or process whereby the party is in custody, or discharge ((him)) the party when the term of commitment has not expired, in either of the cases following:

          (1) Upon any process issued on any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction except where it is alleged in the petition that rights guaranteed the petitioner by the Constitution of the state of Washington or of the United States have been violated and the petition is filed within the time allowed by sections 1 and 2 of this act.

          (2) For any contempt of any court, officer or body having authority in the premises to commit; but an order of commitment, as for a contempt upon proceedings to enforce the remedy of a party, is not included in any of the foregoing specifications.

          (3) Upon a warrant issued from the superior court upon an indictment or information.


          NEW SECTION.  Sec. 4.     At the time judgment and sentence is pronounced in a criminal case, the court shall advise the defendant of the time limit specified in sections 1 and 2 of this act.


          NEW SECTION.  Sec. 5.     As soon as practicable after the effective date of this section, the department of corrections shall attempt to advise the following persons of the time limit specified in sections 1 and 2 of this act:  Every person who, on the effective date of this section, is serving a term of incarceration, probation, parole, or community supervision pursuant to conviction of a felony.


          NEW SECTION.  Sec. 6.     Sections 1 and 2 of this act apply only to petitions and motions filed more than one year after the effective date of this section.


          NEW SECTION.  Sec. 7.     If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.


          NEW SECTION.  Sec. 8.     Sections 1, 2, 4, and 9 of this act are each added to chapter 10.73 RCW.


          NEW SECTION.  Sec. 9.     If a person has previously filed a petition for personal restraint, the court of appeals will not consider the petition unless the person certifies that he or she has not filed a previous petition on similar grounds, and shows good cause why the petitioner did not raise the new grounds in the previous petition.  Upon receipt of a personal restraint petition, the court of appeals shall review the petition and determine whether the person has previously filed a petition or petitions and if so, compare them.  If upon review, the court of appeals finds that the petitioner has previously raised the same grounds for review, or that the petitioner has failed to show good cause why the ground was not raised earlier, the court of appeals shall dismiss the petition on its own motion without requiring the state to respond to the petition.  Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition, the court of appeals shall, whenever possible, review the petition and determine if the petition is based on frivolous grounds.  If frivolous, the court of appeals shall dismiss the petition on its own motion without first requiring the state to respond to the petition.

                                                                                                                           Passed the House April 19, 1989.


                                                                                                                                         Speaker of the House.


                                                                                                                           Passed the Senate April 13, 1989.


                                                                                                                                       President of the Senate.