Personal Restraint Petition Of Jicorey Bradford, 47750-5

On October 7, 2011, occupants of Bradford and Gray’s car fired into a Chevy Caprice occupied by Edwards and Long; the Caprice was hit by multiple bullets and two bullets recovered inside matched a handgun found near Bradford after his car crashed.
Bradford admitted firing shots but claimed self-defense, asserting someone in the Caprice brandished a gun; Edwards and Long denied possessing a gun.
Bradford was tried and convicted of first‑degree assault with a firearm enhancement (against Long), unlawful possession of a firearm, and related counts; some convictions were later reversed on appeal for other reasons.
At trial the court instructed the jury on first‑degree assault (with a self‑defense instruction tied to that charge) and gave an initial‑aggressor instruction; no party requested lesser‑included assault instructions.
Bradford challenged the lack of a second‑degree assault instruction, the use of the initial‑aggressor instruction, and asserted ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
The Court of Appeals denied Bradford’s personal restraint petition, concluding no instruction error and no deficient or prejudicial counsel performance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to instruct on lesser included offense (assault 2nd)	Bradford: court should have given assault 2 as a lesser instruction	State: no request was made; parties accepted instructions	Court: no error where no request was made and parties accepted instructions; trial court not required to give unrequested lesser instruction
Initial‑aggressor instruction	Bradford: evidence did not support an instruction that he was the initial aggressor	State: evidence (conflicting testimony) permitted jury to find Bradford provoked need for self‑defense	Court: instruction supported by credible conflicting evidence; not fundamental error
Ineffective assistance — trial counsel (failing to request lesser/inobject to aggressor instr.)	Bradford: counsel deficient for not requesting lesser instruction and not objecting to initial‑aggressor instruction	State: tactical choice to pursue all‑or‑nothing strategy is reasonable; initial‑aggressor instruction was proper so no prejudice from non‑objection	Court: no deficient performance re: lesser instruction (legitimate strategy); no prejudice re: aggressor instruction because it was proper
Ineffective assistance — appellate counsel	Bradford: appellate counsel failed to raise these issues on direct appeal	State: appellate counsel not ineffective because trial counsel was not shown deficient and no prejudice	Court: denial of trial‑error claims forecloses appellate‑counsel claim; no relief granted

Hoffman v. State, 116 Wn.2d 51 (trial court not required to give unrequested instruction)
Irons v. State, 101 Wn. App. 544 (instructions sufficient if supported by substantial evidence and allow parties to argue theories)
Marquez v. State, 131 Wn. App. 566 (jury instructions read as a whole must inform jurors of applicable law)
Riley v. State, 137 Wn.2d 904 (initial‑aggressor instruction appropriate where credible evidence defendant provoked need for self‑defense)
Crace v. State, 174 Wn.2d 835 (standard for ineffective assistance claims on collateral review)
Kyllo v. State, 166 Wn.2d 856 (strong presumption counsel’s conduct is reasonable; strategy/tactics insulate performance from deficiency claim)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)