In re the Personal Restraint of Ruiz-Sanabria
184 Wash. 2d 632
| Wash. | 2015Background
- Ruiz-Sanabria timely filed CrR 7.8 motion in superior court to withdraw guilty pleas; superior court transferred to Court of Appeals without full record or stated basis; Court of Appeals dismissed as frivolous; record incomplete due to transfer omissions; records later identified as including State affidavit and plea transcript not sent to Court of Appeals; Court of Appeals may need to require State response or remand for complete CrR 7.8 transfer analysis; this court granted discretionary review to address transfer and pleading standards; remand considered to ensure proper CrR 7.8(c)(2) analysis and complete record; preexisting rules require meaningful transfer analysis and potential remand to obtain records; issue of whether transfer deprived Ruiz-Sanabria of due process raised but not decided here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CrR 7.8(c)(2) transfer requires explicit basis and complete record | Ruiz-Sanabria argues transfer lacked basis and full record. | State contends transfer complied with CrR 7.8(c)(2). | Remand to obtain complete record or reconsider transfer criteria. |
| Whether a State response was required before dismissal | Ruiz-Sanabria urged Court to obtain State response given material allegations. | Court could dismiss without response if frivolous. | Court should have considered response; remand warranted for proper consideration. |
| Whether Court of Appeals properly treated transfer as petition and dismissed | Petition contained material factual allegations needing records. | Records not transferred justified dismissal as frivolous. | Remand to ensure proper transfer analysis and record completeness. |
| Whether missing records invalidate the Court of Appeals’ handling | Incomplete transfer undermined merits analysis. | State records exist but were not transmitted. | Remand to secure full pleadings/records or transfer back to superior court. |
| Whether need to apply RAP 16.7/16.8 standards vs CrR 7.8 pleading | Pro se petitioner should have leniency and use of RAP rules. | CrR 7.8 pleading standards apply; transfer must be properly analyzed. | Remand to apply proper transfer analysis and pleading standards; consider complete record. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876 (Wash. 1992) (mandatory evidentiary standard for postconviction petitions; need competent evidence)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Becker, 143 Wn.2d 491 (Wash. 2001) (jurisdiction to consider successive petitions; CrR 7.8 context)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Stoudmire, 141 Wn.2d 342 (Wash. 2000) (new issues in successive petitions; transfer considerations)