Personal Restraint Petition Of Jeffrey Kinzle
74670-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- Jeffrey Kinzie, with a documented history of mental illness, was jailed in March 2011 and charged with failure to register as a sex offender, indecent liberties, and child molestation; he intermittently received psychiatric medication while detained.
- Cassie Trueblood was appointed as public defender; Kinzie repeatedly sent written requests (kites) seeking new counsel and complained she refused investigations and legal materials.
- The State made a multi-count plea offer in April 2011; Kinzie later rejected plea offers, including one in July, against Trueblood’s advice.
- Kinzie moved to substitute counsel at a hearing in July; the court found communication had been reestablished, denied the motion, and later refused to disqualify Trueblood despite reports of threats by Kinzie to other inmates.
- Kinzie was convicted of indecent liberties and child molestation counts on separate trials; his direct appeals (Kinzie I and Kinzie II) affirmed convictions in part.
- In this personal restraint petition, Kinzie argues ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) Trueblood failed to assist in obtaining substitute counsel despite an alleged irreconcilable breakdown, and (2) she failed to investigate his mental health, which caused him to reject the plea offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kinzie may relitigate on PRP that counsel–client relationship was irreconcilably broken | Kinzie: relationship became irreconcilably broken and counsel should have aided substitution; this supports IAC claim | State: claim was raised and rejected on direct appeal; PRP cannot relitigate same issue absent intervening change in law | Denied relief on this ground — claim barred as previously litigated (no intervening change) |
| Whether counsel had an obligation to investigate Kinzie’s mental health | Kinzie: Trueblood knew of mental illness indicators and should have investigated, which would have led to treatment and acceptance of plea | State: claim essentially reasserts competency issue resolved on direct appeal and is speculative regarding linkage to plea refusal | Court considered this distinct issue but found no prejudice; claim fails |
| Whether counsel’s alleged deficiencies prejudiced Kinzie by causing rejection of plea offer | Kinzie: but for investigation/treatment and restored trust, he would have accepted the April plea | State: connection between alleged failures and plea rejection is speculative and unsupported by record | Prejudice not shown — no reasonable probability Kinzie would have accepted plea; petition denied |
| Whether new evidence (kites, medical records, declarations) merits relitigation in interest of justice | Kinzie: new evidence shows deeper breakdown and untreated mental illness | State: prior adjudication controls; new evidence doesn’t show intervening law or interest-of-justice reason to relitigate | New evidence insufficient to overcome bar from direct-appeal adjudication; issue remains barred |
Key Cases Cited
- McFarland v. State, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (Strickland two-part ineffective-assistance framework applied in Washington)
- Stenson v. State, 132 Wn.2d 668 (1997) (standard for substitution of counsel; whether conflict prevented adequate defense)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Stenson, 142 Wn.2d 710 (2001) (limits on relitigating issues in PRPs; exception for intervening change in law)
- Rice v. State, 118 Wn.2d 876 (1992) (actual prejudice requirement in PRPs)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (prejudice standard when counsel’s performance causes rejection of a plea offer)
- Khan v. State, 184 Wn.2d 679 (2015) (distinguishing new claims on PRP from previously litigated issues)
- Crace v. State, 174 Wn.2d 835 (2012) (no need to decide both Strickland prongs if petitioner fails on one)
- Kinzie v. State, 181 Wn. App. 774 (2014) (direct-appeal disposition addressing related issues)