Personal Restraint Petition Of Paramjit Singh Basra, 73785-6

Background

Paramjit Basra was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his wife; this court previously affirmed the conviction and he filed a personal restraint petition (PRP).
At trial Basra asserted mental illness (depression) impaired his ability to premeditate and form intent; defense retained Dr. Gollogly who diagnosed depression.
Jury selection involved questionnaires; the court excused 39 jurors for hardship and individually brought some jurors in for on-the-record questioning after they requested to speak privately.
Basra claims multiple constitutional errors in the PRP: denial of right to be present during juror excusals, denial of the public trial right when individual jurors were questioned, effective denial of his right to testify (limited questioning), and ineffective assistance of counsel for investigation and for counsel’s closing concession of manslaughter.
The trial court imposed a standard-range sentence on first-degree murder and vacated felony-murder; this PRP challenges procedural and counsel-related errors, seeking dismissal, a new trial, or a reference hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Basra)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Right to be present during juror excusals	Basra was absent when 39 jurors were excused for hardship and during some voir dire, violating his right to be present; appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising it	Court minutes and clerk’s entry show Basra was present; Irby limited to juror fitness for particular case; Basra’s declarations are conclusory	Denied — no showing by preponderance that Basra was absent; no ineffective assistance on appeal for failing to raise it
Right to a public trial when individual jurors were questioned	Individual questioning was effectively a closed proceeding, violating the public trial right	Questioning was on the record, open to the public; court only limited discussion among jurors, not public access (consistent with Love)	Denied — no courtroom closure shown; no basis for reference hearing
Right to testify / scope of testimony	Counsel limited Basra’s testimony to turban-related questions, effectively denying his right to testify to core facts	Basra chose to testify; counsel permitted him to testify; counsel’s focus on turban responded to Basra’s concerns about identifications; strategic reasons supported limiting narrative (expert testimony covered facts)	Denied — no deficient performance; Basra testified and decision reviewed as Strickland claim fails on performance prong
Ineffective assistance for investigation and closing concession	Counsel failed to timely investigate medical/thyroid evidence and didn’t consult before conceding manslaughter, prejudicing Basra	Counsel retained mental-health expert, investigated depression; medical cause would only corroborate diagnosis and not change intent inquiry; conceding manslaughter was strategic given overwhelming evidence and fits defense theory	Denied — investigation and expert retention were reasonable; conceding lesser offense was legitimate strategy; no deficient performance established

Key Cases Cited

Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (right to be present at critical stages)
United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (due process right to be present when presence affects defense)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (constitutional right to testify)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d 874 (jury-selection communications and defendant’s presence)
State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598 (public trial right analysis during jury selection)
In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876 (PRP pleading/factual support requirements)
In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 160 Wn. App. 479 (PRP burden to show prejudice or fundamental defect)