In re the Personal Restraint of Haghighi
178 Wash. 2d 435
| Wash. | 2013Background
- Haghighi was convicted of first-degree theft and multiple counts for fraudulent checks; some bank records were obtained from an out-of-state (Illinois) internet bank after a Washington warrant was faxed to the bank. The State concedes the method was improper under Illinois law.
- At trial Haghighi moved to suppress the Allstate (out-of-state) records but did not contest probable cause; the trial court deemed the warrant unenforceable in Illinois but admitted the records under the inevitable discovery doctrine without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the State would have inevitably discovered the records. Haghighi’s appointed appellate counsel informed him no petition for review would be filed.
- After this court decided State v. Winterstein (striking the inevitable discovery doctrine under the Washington Constitution), Haghighi filed a timely PRP asserting Winterstein error; he later (after the one-year statutory deadline) sought to amend to add an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim for not preserving the inevitable-discovery argument.
- The Court of Appeals held Winterstein announced a new rule not applied retroactively to final convictions and ruled the ineffective-assistance claim untimely; this Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Haghighi’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Winterstein (abolishing inevitable discovery under WA Const. art. I, §7) | Winterstein announced a rule that should benefit him despite finality | Winterstein announced a new rule and does not apply retroactively to convictions final before decision | Winterstein announced a new rule; not retroactive to Haghighi’s final judgment (affirmed) |
| Applicability of Teague framework for state retroactivity | Should abandon or modify Teague post-Danforth to favor retroactivity | Washington has long applied Teague; no persuasive alternative urged here | Court retains Teague-based retroactivity analysis; Danforth does not compel departure here |
| Timeliness / amendment of PRP to add ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim | Amendment should relate back to timely PRP (or be allowed) | RAP/RCW and precedent require timeliness; amended claim is new and untimely | Amended ineffective-assistance claim is a new claim and does not relate back; untimely (time barred) |
| Equitable tolling to excuse the one-year PRP deadline | Equitable tolling should apply because counsel’s earlier communications/changes in law prevented earlier filing | Equitable tolling is narrow; petitioner knew facts and failed to act; strict standard applies | Equitable tolling denied; petitioner did not show bad faith, deception, or diligence required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d 620 (2009) (held inevitable discovery doctrine inconsistent with Wash. Const. art. I, § 7)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (federal framework for retroactivity of new rules to final convictions)
- Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008) (federal courts’ Teague rule does not bind state courts’ retroactivity decisions)
- State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564 (2003) (declined to resolve broader validity of inevitable discovery doctrine and left the issue open)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Bonds, 165 Wn.2d 135 (2008) (discussed equitable tolling and amendment practices in PRP context)