Personal Restraint Petition Of Jake Joseph Musga, 46987-1

Background

Petitioner Jake Musga pled guilty to first-degree felony murder and first-degree child rape after a 2013 investigation showed the victim, a 2‑year‑old, had been sexually assaulted and beaten; plea documents included factual admissions supporting aggravating factors.
The State offered a plea allowing Musga to plead as charged; it warned it would amend charges to aggravated murder (exposing death or life without parole) if he declined; plea required a factual statement and excluded Alford pleas.
Musga signed plea forms admitting facts that could support aggravators; at sentencing the court imposed concurrent upward (exceptional) sentences well above standard ranges.
Musga filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) for: failure to review discovery, inadequate investigation, inadequate advice about pleading to first‑degree murder, and failure to explain that his plea stipulated facts permitting an exceptional sentence; he also sought reinstatement of direct appeal rights.
The Court of Appeals remanded for a superior‑court reference hearing on the IAC issues; the superior court found counsel’s performance was not deficient and Musga failed to prove prejudice; the appellate panel affirmed and dismissed the PRP.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to provide or review discovery with Musga was prejudicial	Musga: counsel did not show him police reports, witness statements, autopsy reports; lack of review impaired his ability to assist investigation	State/counsel: discovery was reviewed as appropriate; Musga showed no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Denied — Musga failed to make prima facie showing of prejudice
Whether counsel conducted an adequate investigation	Musga: counsel should have interviewed witnesses and retained medical experts earlier to challenge timing/causation of injuries	Counsel: they gathered records, retained experts and PI, focused on medical evidence given circumstances and a fast plea deadline; delaying interviews was strategic	Denied — substantial evidence supports finding investigation was reasonable
Whether counsel adequately advised Musga before pleading guilty	Musga: counsel pressured him with threat to amend charges, did not explain weaknesses in State’s proof, and did not meaningfully assist decision to plead	Counsel: explained charges, aggravators, strength of evidence, and plea consequences; Musga confirmed understanding at plea	Denied — counsel substantially assisted and plea was knowing and voluntary
Whether counsel failed to explain that plea admissions stipulated facts permitting an exceptional sentence and that Musga retained limited appeal rights	Musga: he was unaware his factual admissions allowed an exceptional upward sentence and that he had appeal rights	Counsel/State: plea documents, counsel’s explanations, and Musga’s own pre‑sentence statements show he knew the State sought an exceptional sentence and he signed an Advice of Right to Appeal	Denied — substantial evidence shows Musga was informed; appeal right was knowingly waived

Key Cases Cited

State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (Ineffective assistance standard; deficient performance and prejudice required)
In re Pers. Restraint of Finstad, 177 Wn.2d 501 (Collateral relief standards for constitutional and nonconstitutional errors)
In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 177 Wn.2d 1 (PRP mechanics: prima facie showing and reference hearings)
In re Pers. Restraint of Crace, 174 Wn.2d 835 (Relation between IAC prejudice and PRP actual prejudice)
In re Pers. Restraint of Stenson, 174 Wn.2d 474 (Substantial‑evidence standard for reference‑hearing findings)
In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (Burden in reference hearing; credibility findings binding)
In re Pers. Restraint of Elmore, 162 Wn.2d 236 (Counsel’s duty to investigate; deference to strategic choices)
State v. A.N.J., 168 Wn.2d 91 (Counsel must reasonably evaluate evidence to assist plea decisions)
In re Pers. Restraint of Clements, 125 Wn. App. 634 (Prejudice assessed by likelihood investigation would change plea recommendation)
In re Pers. Restraint of Cross, 180 Wn.2d 664 (Must show but for counsel’s failure he would not have pled guilty)
State v. Knotek, 136 Wn. App. 412 (Sentencing consequences are direct consequences of plea and must be advised)
State v. Brett, 142 Wn.2d 868 (Review standards for reference‑hearing factual findings)