Personal Restraint Petition Of Kenneth Wayne Sandholm, 69598-3

Kenneth Sandholm was convicted by a jury in Feb 2012 of felony DUI in King County and received a 60‑month sentence; he filed a personal restraint petition in Dec 2012 while his direct appeal was pending.
On Jan 13, 2012, five days before his second trial, deputy prosecutors offered a plea recommending 30 months and resolution of reinstated district‑court misdemeanor charges; the offer was said to be valid through Jan 17.
Sandholm was self‑represented in the superior court proceedings when the plea was offered; district‑court counsel status was confused (reinstated charges, former counsel Tavel said he had no contact since 2009, SCRAP had been appointed then withdrawn).
Sandholm contends he delayed acceptance to verify the district‑court provisions with counsel; the State withdrew the plea offer on Jan 17 when he had not obtained that verification.
He argued in the petition that he was effectively denied Sixth Amendment counsel (and effective assistance) during plea negotiations and sought specific performance of the plea agreement to obtain an earlier release date.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition, concluding that because Sandholm represented himself in superior court he cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel for those plea negotiations; collateral claim failed under RAP 16.4(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sandholm was denied Sixth Amendment right to counsel during plea negotiations	Sandholm: district‑court counsel abandoned him so plea provisions could not be verified and he was effectively denied counsel, entitling him to specific performance	State: the plea concerned the superior court charge where Sandholm was self‑represented; any district‑court counsel issues are irrelevant to the superior court plea negotiations	Court: Denied—because Sandholm was representing himself in superior court, he cannot claim denial of counsel for those plea negotiations
Whether Sandholm received ineffective assistance during plea negotiations	Sandholm: lack of counsel/advice about district misdemeanor provisions rendered plea process ineffective	State: self‑representation in superior court bars ineffective‑assistance claim; burden on self‑represented defendant to obtain needed advice	Court: Denied—self‑representation precludes ineffective assistance claim in these proceedings

Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 133 (2012) (right to counsel at critical stages includes plea bargaining)
State v. Heddrick, 166 Wn.2d 898 (2009) (counsel required at critical stages under Washington law)
State v. McDonald, 143 Wn.2d 506 (2001) (self‑represented defendants cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163 (2011) (RAP 16.4(c) standards for collateral relief)
In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876 (1992) (evidence for PRP must be more than speculation)
State v. Sandholm, 184 Wn.2d 726 (2015) (Washington Supreme Court affirmed the underlying judgment and sentence)