In re the Personal Restraint of Yates
353 P.3d 1283
Wash.2015Background
- Robert Lee Yates Jr. was convicted in Pierce County of two counts of aggravated first-degree murder and sentenced to death; convictions and sentence were affirmed in 2007.
- Yates previously entered a deal in other counties (Spokane, Walla Walla, Skagit) pleading guilty to multiple murders and receiving life sentences; Pierce County prosecuted separately.
- Yates filed a timely personal restraint petition (PRP) in 2008 challenging his death sentence; that PRP was dismissed in 2013.
- In 2014 Yates filed a new PRP alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to move based on improper venue (arguing murders may have occurred in King County), and his trial counsel now say they overlooked such a motion.
- The 2014 PRP was filed seven years after finality in 2007 and did not invoke any statutory exceptions to the one-year filing deadline; Yates later suggested (in reply) alternative timeliness theories including a broad newly discovered evidence exception and a proposed new exception for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in capital cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRP is timely under RCW 10.73.090 | Yates argues petition should be excused by (1) a broad newly discovered evidence exception or (2) a new exception for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in capital cases | State contends PRP is untimely; statutory one-year limit applies and no exception fits | Court dismissed PRP as untimely — no applicable statutory exception and court declines to create a new one |
| Whether alleged newly discovered evidence (counsel’s current view) saves the PRP | Yates contends counsel’s declarations are newly discovered evidence of trial counsel’s omission | State argues the claim is nonnew and counsel’s present strategy/idea is not "newly discovered evidence" | Court rejects the argument: no newly discovered evidence and petitioner failed to meet Lord requirements |
| Whether a new judicial exception should be created for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in capital cases | Yates asks court to craft a new time-bar exception grounded in due process | State says creation of new exceptions is for legislature; precedent disfavors creating new exceptions here | Court declines to create new exception: statutory framework, procedural default, inadequate briefing, and no showing to overturn precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714 (2007) (affirming convictions and death sentence)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 177 Wn.2d 1 (2013) (dismissing earlier PRP)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296 (1994) (standards for newly discovered evidence in PRP)
- W.G. Clark Constr. Co. v. Pac. Nw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters, 180 Wn.2d 54 (2014) (standard for overruling precedent)
- In re Rights to Waters of Stranger Creek, 77 Wn.2d 649 (1970) (principle on overturning prior precedent)