In re the Personal Restraint of Haghighi
167 Wash. App. 712
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Haghighi's PRP challenges his UIDC and first-degree theft convictions.
- Bank records were admitted under the inevitable discovery rule at trial; this ruling was upheld on direct appeal.
- Winterstein later held the inevitable discovery rule unconstitutional under the Washington Constitution.
- Haghighi argues Winterstein applies retroactively on collateral review and seeks relief under RAP 16.4 and RCW 10.73.100(6).
- The court concludes Winterstein does not apply retroactively to final convictions and that Haghighi's ineffective-assistance claim is time-barred.
- The PRP is dismissed on retroactivity and timeliness grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Winterstein on collateral review | Haghighi: Winterstein retroactive under state law. | State: Winterstein not retroactive for final convictions. | Winterstein not retroactive on collateral review |
| Whether Winterstein announces a new rule for retroactivity | Winterstein did not announce a new rule under state jurisprudence. | Winterstein constitutes a change in law. | Winterstein announces a new rule for retroactivity |
| State retroactivity analysis independent of Teague | RAP 16.4(c)(4) and RCW 10.73.100(6) provide independent retroactivity. | Teague analysis governs retroactivity; no independent state standard. | No independent state retroactivity standard; Teague analysis applies |
| Timeliness of Haghighi's ineffective-assistance claim | IAC claim relates back to earlier petition. | RCW 10.73.090 time bar applies; no relate-back for PRP. | IAC claim time-barred |
| Relate-back of untimely IAC claim under civil rules | Rule 15(c) supports relate-back. | No PRP amendments permit relate-back; one-year limit fixed. | No relate-back; claim barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Winterstein v. State, 167 Wn.2d 620 (Wash. 2009) (inevitable discovery unconstitutional under state constitution)
- O’Neill v. State, 148 Wn.2d 564 (Wash. 2003) (inevitable discovery rule limited by article I, section 7)
- Evans v. State, 154 Wn.2d 438 (Wash. 2005) (federal retroactivity framework guides state retroactivity)
- Market v. State, 154 Wn.2d 262 (Wash. 2005) (defines new-rule retroactivity under Teague framework)
- Rhome v. State, 172 Wn.2d 654 (Wash. 2011) (watershed-rule standard for retroactivity under Summerlin/Sawyer)
- Benn v. State, 134 Wn.2d 868 (Wash. 1998) (amendment/relief timing; PRP amendments not allowed to bypass time bar)
- Gaines v. State, 154 Wn.2d 711 (Wash. 2005) (case concerning application of inevitable discovery; not reaching outcome on the issue)
- Abrams v. State, 163 Wn.2d 277 (Wash. 2008) (Teague-like retroactivity guidance in state law context)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (federal framework for inevitable discovery considerations)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (establishes federal retroactivity framework for new rules)
- State v. Avila-Avina, 99 Wn. App. 9 (Wash. App. 2000) (federal rationale context for inevitable discovery doctrine)