Personal Restraint Petition Of Ryan Marcus Gonzalez, 81787-6

On April 19, 2017, after drinking throughout the day, Ryan Gonzalez entered his ex-girlfriend Michelle Wirth’s unlocked apartment without permission and assaulted her; police later arrested him while he appeared visibly intoxicated.
Gonzalez was charged with first‑degree burglary (domestic violence), felony violation of a court order (domestic violence), and related counts; a jury convicted him of burglary and felony violation of a court order.
In a bifurcated proceeding the court found a rapid recidivism aggravator and sentenced Gonzalez to 90 months.
This court previously affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and Gonzalez’s Sixth Amendment claims.
Gonzalez filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for: (1) not objecting to testimony about his intoxication; (2) not requesting a voluntary intoxication jury instruction; (3) not calling witnesses to attest to his sobriety earlier that day; and (4) failing to investigate an alibi.
The Court of Appeals denied the PRP, concluding Gonzalez failed to show deficient performance or prejudice for each claim and that several claims were speculative or unsupported by admissible evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to object to testimony about intoxication	Gonzalez: counsel should have objected to witnesses’ testimony that he was intoxicated.	Counsel used intoxication tactically to impeach witnesses and highlight inconsistencies; an objection likely would be overruled because intoxication was relevant.	Denied — no deficient performance; tactical use and evidence of entry/assault made any objection nonprejudicial.
Failure to request voluntary intoxication instruction	Gonzalez: counsel should have requested an instruction reducing culpability due to intoxication.	No evidence connected intoxication to inability to form required intent/knowledge; thus no entitlement to instruction.	Denied — not entitled to instruction (lacks evidence linking intoxication to incapacity).
Failure to call witnesses about sobriety	Gonzalez: counsel should have called family witnesses to show he was sober earlier, undermining prosecution witnesses.	Gonzalez offered no proffer of what witnesses would say; claim is speculative and unsupported.	Denied — speculative, no competent admissible evidence showing different testimony.
Failure to investigate alibi	Gonzalez: counsel should have pursued an alibi that he was in a different bar during the assault.	No showing an investigation would have produced useful, prejudicial information beyond what counsel knew.	Denied — no factual showing of likely beneficial evidence; claim is conjectural.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352 (explains objective standard for deficient performance and deference to strategy)
In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (PRP relief: constitutional error causing actual prejudice or fundamental defect)
In re Pers. Restraint of Lord, 152 Wn.2d 182 (burden to show prejudicial error by preponderance)
State v. Gallegos, 65 Wn. App. 230 (requirements for voluntary intoxication instruction)
State v. Gabryschak, 83 Wn. App. 249 (intoxication evidence must reasonably connect to inability to form requisite mental state)
In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876 (claims must be supported by competent admissible evidence, not speculation)