In re the Personal Restraint of Crace, 280 P.3d 1102

Crace was convicted of attempted second degree assault with a deadly weapon, a third-strike offense resulting in life without release.
Crace filed a timely personal restraint petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting a lesser-included instruction unlawful display of a deadly weapon.
The Court of Appeals held trial counsel deficient and that Crace was prejudiced, applying Strickland prejudice and rejecting a heightened, collateral-attack prejudice standard.
The Supreme Court granted review to consider the prejudice standard for collateral attacks and the impact of lesser-included offense instructions.
The majority holds that Strickland prejudice suffices for actual and substantial prejudice on collateral attack; no extra standard applies.
Crace could be convicted of the charged offense based on the record; the Court declines to find prejudice from omitting the lesser-included instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Strickland prejudice satisfy collateral-attack prejudice?	Crace	State	Yes; Strickland prejudice suffices
Did Crace show actual and substantial prejudice under Strickland on collateral attack?	Crace	State	No; Crace failed to show prejudice
Should this case apply a heightened 'double prejudice' standard on collateral attack?	Crace	State	No; no double-prejudice standard required

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (prejudice requires a reasonable probability of a different outcome; standard adapts under collateral attack)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (prejudice linked to reliability of the proceeding; harmlessness not applicable to certain constitutional claims)
State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (Wash. 2011) (rejects failure-to-seek lesser-included offense with respect to prejudice)
State v. Breitung, 173 Wn.2d 393 (Wash. 2011) (limits prejudice from omitted lesser-included offense instructions)
In re Personal Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (Wash. 2004) (equates Strickland prejudice with actual and substantial prejudice in PRP context)
In re Personal Restraint of Woods, 154 Wn.2d 400 (Wash. 2005) (applies reasonable probability prejudice in both ineffective assistance and Brady claims)
Rice v. State, 118 Wn.2d 876 (Wash. 1992) (recognizes use of Strickland prejudice standard in PRPs)
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (Wash. 2011) (discusses prejudice in PRP context; not controlling for this case)
In re Personal Restraint of Grantham, 168 Wn.2d 204 (Wash. 2010) (discussed prejudice standards in PRPs)