State v. Jones, 352 P.3d 776

Leroy Jones was convicted of second-degree assault after a street fight; trial evidence conflicted over who was aggressor and when Jones had a knife.
After the guilty verdict, trial counsel withdrew, admitting he had failed to interview eyewitnesses identified in police discovery (Lori Brown, Michael Hamilton, and later Sulva Ooveda).
Replacement counsel located and interviewed Hamilton (and relied on Brown’s trial testimony and other discovery) and moved for a new trial on ineffective-assistance grounds; the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed; this court granted review and ordered a remand RAP 9.11 hearing to take evidence about counsel’s investigation.
Remand hearing testimony established counsel made no informed decision to forgo interviewing or calling those witnesses; expert testimony found counsel’s performance deficient.
The Supreme Court reversed Jones’s conviction for ineffective assistance (Strickland prejudice and performance satisfied) and held Jones’s Florida assault priors were comparable to Washington second-degree assault for POAA sentencing purposes (Sublett controls).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to interview/call eyewitnesses identified in discovery?	Jones: counsel’s unexplained failure to interview/call Brown, Hamilton, Ooveda was deficient and prejudiced the defense (denied opportunity to develop victim theory and put neutral eyewitnesses before jury).	State: failure was not prejudicial because Brown testified at trial and Hamilton’s account would not have changed outcome or was inconsistent with other witnesses.	Held: counsel’s failures were deficient and prejudicial — reasonable probability of a different outcome; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial.
Are Jones’s prior Florida assault convictions "comparable" to Washington second-degree assault for persistent-offender sentencing despite Florida not recognizing diminished-capacity defense?	Jones: Florida’s rejection of diminished capacity makes the offenses non-comparable.	State: elements are essentially identical; difference in availability of diminished-capacity defense is irrelevant under state precedent.	Held: Availability of diminished-capacity defense in Washington but not Florida does not defeat comparability; priors counted (Sublett controlling).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61 (state-level framing of Strickland standard)
State v. Ray, 116 Wn.2d 531 (failure to investigate/interview witnesses can constitute ineffective assistance)
State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58 (difference in availability of diminished-capacity defense does not preclude comparability for POAA sentencing)
State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472 (comparability analysis for out-of-state convictions)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits on using underlying facts of prior convictions for sentencing enhancements)
In re Pers. Restraint of Lavery, 154 Wn.2d 249 (discusses limits on examining underlying facts of foreign convictions)
Howard v. Clark, 608 F.3d 563 (illustrative federal appellate authority on how additional eyewitness testimony can create reasonable doubt)