Personal Restraint Petition Of: Sergio Gonzalez-guzman
75296-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | May 22, 2017Background
- In 2009 Sergio Gonzalez Guzman was convicted of first-degree assault of his six-week-old son (D.G.) based on medical testimony that the infant suffered severe, nonaccidental injuries (brain hemorrhages, retinal hemorrhages, skull fracture, multiple broken ribs, spiral tibia fracture) consistent with abusive head trauma.
- At trial the State called seven medical witnesses; defense counsel Ali Nakkour called no witnesses, offered no opening statement, and did not present a medical expert to rebut the State's causation evidence.
- Nakkour later declared he had consulted a California expert who had not reviewed D.G.’s records, intended to retain a reviewing expert, but did not seek public funding for an expert and did not pursue a continuance when family funds failed to materialize.
- Gonzalez Guzman submitted a declaration from Dr. Steven Gabaeff (limited records review) opining the injuries were consistent with the father’s account and that some injuries could stem from low-oxygen events during medical care; the State challenged the declaration as factually and methodologically unreliable.
- The Court of Appeals found counsel’s failure to obtain a record-reviewed medical expert was constitutionally deficient but concluded the existing record did not establish the prejudice prong (reasonable probability of a different outcome), so it remanded for a reference hearing to resolve prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gonzalez Guzman) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered constitutionally deficient assistance by failing to obtain a medical expert who reviewed the record | Nakkour knew an expert was needed, consulted a non‑record-reviewed expert, failed to seek available public funding, and thus limited investigation unreasonably | Strategy decision; existing consultation and cross‑examination were adequate; more facts needed to assess reasonableness | Counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient (prima facie satisfied) |
| Whether defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure (Strickland prejudice) | A competent, record‑reviewing expert (e.g., Gabaeff) would have provided testimony creating reasonable doubt and undermined conviction | Gabaeff’s declaration is unreliable, contains factual errors, exceeds expertise, and does not establish a reasonable probability of a different verdict | Prejudice not resolvable on record; remand for reference hearing to resolve credibility and whether reasonable probability exists |
| Whether the case should be remanded to the original trial judge for the reference hearing | Petitioner did not object; State asked for same judge | RAP generally requires a different judge, but court may waive rules to serve justice | Remand to superior court for a reference hearing before the trial judge is allowed (parties did not object) |
| Standard and procedure for PRP ineffective assistance claims | PRP requires prima facie showing of deficient performance and prejudice; if material facts are disputed, court should order a reference hearing | State urged more factual development before finding deficiency or prejudice | Court applied Strickland standard, found deficiency on the record, and ordered a reference hearing limited to prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficiency and prejudice Strickland test for ineffective assistance)
- Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (attorney’s failure to secure adequate expert funding and basic legal research can be unreasonable performance requiring remand to examine prejudice)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876 (procedural standards for PRP and when to order reference hearings)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (presumption of effective assistance and evaluation from counsel’s perspective)