309 P.3d 451
Wash.2013Background
- In 2000 Devon Adams was convicted of first-degree murder; trial counsel sought lesser-included instructions and a voluntary intoxication instruction; Adams received an exceptional below‑standard sentence and did not appeal.
- In 2009 the trial court agreed the original offender score misincluded washed‑out juvenile adjudications, resentenced Adams to a lower term, and entered a corrected judgment; Adams did not appeal the resentencing.
- In October 2009 Adams filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a second‑degree murder plea offer and for failing to develop a diminished‑capacity defense; he filed within one year of resentencing and after learning of the alleged plea offer from a newspaper article.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the PRP as untimely under RCW 10.73.090 and as successive; Adams sought review.
- The Supreme Court majority held Adams’s ineffective‑assistance claims are time barred because the facial invalidity exception in RCW 10.73.090 does not operate as a “super‑exception” waiving the one‑year limit for unrelated claims once a sentencing error is corrected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the one‑year limitations period in RCW 10.73.090 begin where the original judgment was facially invalid? | Adams: the clock starts when a "judgment and sentence" is valid on its face — here, at the 2009 resentencing, so his PRP is timely. | State: the facial‑invalidity precondition only permits attack on the defect that made the judgment invalid; it does not open the door to all unrelated time‑barred claims. | Court: sided with State — facial invalidity does not create a "super exception"; claims unrelated to the facial defect remain subject to the one‑year bar. |
| Can a petitioner use a resentencing that cures a facial defect to revive other untimely fair‑trial claims? | Adams: yes — resentencing produces a new valid judgment and restarts the limitations period for all claims. | State: no — legislature confined post‑finality relief to specific exceptions in RCW 10.73.100; Coats bars using facial invalidity to circumvent the time bar. | Court: no — petitioner cannot wait to raise unrelated claims until after correction of a sentencing error. |
| Does Coats control this posture where the original judgment was facially invalid and later corrected? | Adams: Coats is dicta on the facial‑invalidity gate issue and does not bind here. | State: Coats and its concurrences concretely reject using facial invalidity to evade RCW 10.73.100 limits. | Court: relied on Coats reasoning and precedent to affirm dismissal as untimely. |
| Were Adams’s ineffective‑assistance claims otherwise reviewable (e.g., successive, or sufficient to require a hearing)? | Adams: claims meritorious and timely after resentencing. | State: claims are untimely and successive; affidavits showed no plea offer; one claim failed Rice standard. | Court: dismissed PRP as time barred (affirming Court of Appeals). The concurrence would have reached merits on the diminished‑capacity claim and found one claim merited a Rice hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of Coats, 173 Wn.2d 123 (court explained facial‑invalidity language cannot be used to circumvent one‑year bar for unrelated claims)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Skylstad, 160 Wn.2d 944 (discusses finality for purposes of collateral attack when sentence remains under direct review)
- Advanced Silicon Materials, LLC v. Grant County, 156 Wn.2d 84 (statutory interpretation requires reading related provisions together to discern legislative intent)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876 (Rice standard for evidentiary/reference hearing requires competent, admissible evidence)