In re Pers. Restraint of Rhem, 394 P.3d 367

Michael Rhem was retried for first-degree assault and unlawful possession after an earlier reversal; the trial court excluded the public (including Rhem's family) during most of jury selection.
Rhem was convicted; he did not raise a public-trial-closure issue on direct appeal.
Rhem filed a timely pro se personal restraint petition (PRP) asserting a public-trial violation and other claims; his pro se reply briefly asked the court to consider sua sponte an ineffective-appellate-counsel claim raised by the State in its response.
The Court of Appeals ordered a reference hearing; the superior court found the courtroom was effectively closed, Bone-Club factors were not applied, but Rhem failed to prove actual and substantial prejudice.
The Court of Appeals denied relief, concluding Rhem had not adequately raised ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, had not shown actual and substantial prejudice, and had an untimely federal claim; the Washington Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rhem adequately raised an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim by a sentence in his pro se reply	Rhem: his reply amended the PRP within the one-year limit and thus timely and adequate	State: the claim was not properly raised or supported; new issues in a reply are disfavored	Court: not adequately raised — reply-era, unsupported statement fails procedural and briefing rules
Whether pro se status relaxes pleading/briefing requirements for PRPs	Rhem: pro se filings should be liberally construed	State: pro se petitioners must meet the same rules as attorneys	Court: pro se status does not excuse compliance; stricter Washington precedent applies
Whether prejudice is presumed for the public-trial violation here or must be proven	Rhem: closure is structural; prejudice presumed (relies on Orange and related authority)	State: because ineffective-appellate-counsel was not properly raised, Rhem must show actual and substantial prejudice in a PRP	Court: prejudice must be shown (Coggin/Speight precedent); presumption applies only when ineffective-appellate-counsel claim is properly presented
Whether Rhem demonstrated actual and substantial prejudice from the closure	Rhem: exclusion of family and jurors’ perception of that exclusion caused prejudice	State: trial-court findings show no actual and substantial prejudice	Court: Rhem did not challenge or rebut the reference hearing finding of no prejudice; insufficient to overturn

State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (Wash. 1995) (framework for lawful courtroom closure)
In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795 (Wash. 2004) (prejudice presumed when appellate counsel fails to raise public-trial violation)
In re Pers. Restraint of Speight, 182 Wn.2d 103 (Wash. 2014) (PRP public-trial error requires showing of prejudice absent preserved ineffective-appellate-counsel claim)
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, 182 Wn.2d 115 (Wash. 2014) (plurality addressing prejudice requirement in PRP context)
In re Pers. Restraint of Bonds, 165 Wn.2d 135 (Wash. 2008) (pro se PRP litigants held to procedural rules despite late appointment of counsel)
In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 111 Wn.2d 353 (Wash. 1988) (PRP requires more than conclusory allegations)
State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2012) (public-trial violations can be structural error)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (public-trial right and standard that prejudice need not be shown for some closure errors)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (defining structural error vs. trial error)