In re Meredith, 94582-9
| Decision Date | 02 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 94582-9,94582-9 |
| Citation | 422 P.3d 458 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the Personal Restraint of Gary Daniel MEREDITH, Respondent. |
James S. Schacht, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, 930 Tacoma Avenue S, Room 946, Tacoma, WA 98402-2102, for Petitioner.
Peter B. Tiller, The Tiller Law Firm, P.O. Box 58, Centralia, WA 98531-0058, for Respondent.
¶ 1 At Gary Meredith’s trial, the court erroneously gave the State and defense counsel one less peremptory challenge than they were entitled to under CrR 6.4(e)(1) and CrR 6.5. In a timely personal restraint petition, Meredith claimed his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the peremptory challenge violation on direct review. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed with Meredith, reversing his convictions and remanding for a new trial. However, under RAP 2.5(a), the appellate court could have refused to hear the claim of error because it was not objected to at trial and it is not a type of structural error that requires automatic reversal. Thus, we hold that Meredith’s appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise that claim of error. We reverse the Court of Appeals on this issue and remand for the Court of Appeals to address Meredith’s remaining claims.
¶ 2 Gary Meredith was convicted of second degree rape of a child and communication with a minor for immoral purposes in 1996. The trial court seated 14 jurors, including two alternates who would be chosen at random at the end of the trial. The trial court gave the State and defense counsel seven peremptory challenges each. This was an error. With two alternates, the court should have added two peremptory challenges to the initial six that are granted for any noncapital felony case and granted a total of eight to each party. CrR 6.4(e)(1) ; CrR 6.5. Neither party objected to this number. Each party exercised all seven peremptory challenges. There was a brief colloquy on whether the alternate jurors should be designated at the start or end of trial:
1 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 9-10. Prior to trial, the court also ruled on motions relating to admitting evidence of Meredith’s prior sex offense convictions. The court admitted Meredith’s prior convictions as proof of an element of count II, communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. The trial court issued the following jury instruction limiting consideration of the prior conviction evidence: 6 VRP at 512-13.
¶ 3 After his conviction, Meredith absconded for 12 years and was sentenced in November 2008 to 198 months in prison. State v. Meredith , 178 Wash.2d 180, 183, 306 P.3d 942 (2013). On direct appeal, Meredith’s counsel raised four main issues: (1) exclusion of a juror was the result of a Batson violation, Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed. 2d 69 (1986), (2) insufficient evidence supported his conviction for communication with a minor for immoral purposes, (3) the trial court improperly prohibited him from arguing about the absence of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) evidence during closing argument, and (4) violation of rights to confrontation and cross-examination. See State v . Meredith , 165 Wash. App. 704, 707, 422 P.3d 474 (2011). The Court of Appeals confirmed the conviction, but this court accepted review of the Batson violation claim. Id. , review granted , 173 Wash.2d 1031, 275 P.3d 303 (2012). This court affirmed the conviction, and the United States Supreme Court denied Meredith’s petition for a writ of certiorari on February 24, 2014. Meredith , 178 Wash.2d 180, 306 P.3d 942, cert. denied , 571 U.S. 1220, 134 S.Ct. 1329, 188 L.Ed.2d 339 (2014).
¶ 4 Meredith filed this timely personal restraint petition on August 8, 2014, and filed a revised personal restraint petition on January 29, 2015. The Court of Appeals allowed the filing and considered the supplemental petition on the merits. The court appointed counsel, who raised five claims on Meredith’s behalf: (1) incorrect denial of the correct number of peremptory challenges, (2) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, (3) incorrect denial of Meredith’s motion to sever the two counts, (4) insufficient jury instruction limiting consideration of ER 404(b) evidence, and (5) evidentiary hearing is required to present testimony regarding duration of motile spermatozoa and lack of physical findings.
¶ 5 The Court of Appeals granted relief based on the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. In re Pers. Restraint of Meredith , No. 46671-6-II, slip op. at 1, 2017 WL 588205 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2017) (unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/. Relying on our decision in Vreen to hold that "[a]ny impairment of a party’s right to exercise a peremptory challenge ... constitutes reversible error without a showing of prejudice," the court concluded that if Meredith’s "appellate counsel had raised this issue on direct appeal, we would have reversed and remanded Meredith’s case for a new trial" and, therefore, "Meredith was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s ineffective assistance."
Id. at 7-8 (citing State v. Vreen , 143 Wn.2d 923, 931-32, 26 P.3d 236 (2001) ). Because the court ordered a new trial, it also addressed the admissibility of prior sex offense convictions and the court’s limiting instruction on those convictions. It held that the trial court erred by giving the limiting instruction because "[w]hile the instruction correctly limited the consideration of the prior conviction evidence to count II, it did not further instruct the jury it could only use the fact of conviction to decide an element of the count II." Id. at 13.
¶ 6 The State petitioned for review, arguing the Court of Appeals improperly considered Meredith’s supplemental filings, there was no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and the limiting instruction was sufficient. We granted review. State v. Meredith , 189 Wash.2d 1023, 408 P.3d 1093 (2017).
I. Was it proper for the Court of Appeals to consider Meredith’s supplemental filings under RAP 16.8 ?
II. Was Meredith’s appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise the peremptory challenge violation on direct appeal?
III. Was the trial court’s limiting instruction on prior conviction evidence sufficient?
¶ 7 To obtain relief through a personal restraint petition, Meredith must show either (1) a constitutional error that resulted in actual and substantial prejudice or (2) a nonconstitutional error that " ‘constitutes a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.’ " In re Pers. Restraint of Davis , 152 Wash.2d 647, 671-72, 101 P.3d 1 (2004) (quoting In re Pers. Restraint of Cook , 114 Wash.2d 802, 813, 792 P.2d 506 (1990) ). "[T]o prevail on a PRP [ (personal restraint petition) ] alleging constitutional error, [the petitioner] must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the error has caused him actual prejudice." In re Pers. Restraint of Lord , 152 Wash.2d 182, 188, 94 P.3d 952 (2004) (citing Cook , 114 Wash.2d at 813-14, 792 P.2d 506 ). When reviewing a Court of Appeals decision on a personal restraint petition, "we review pure questions of law de novo and the question of deference to the Court of Appeals does not arise." In re Pers. Restraint of Coats , 173 Wash.2d 123, 133, 267 P.3d 324 (2011).
¶ 8 As an initial matter, we address whether the Court of Appeals properly considered Meredith’s supplemental filings. The State asserts that Meredith’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his January 2015 petition was not sufficiently supported by legal authority. The State argues that later filings addressing the issue in detail were improperly considered because under RAP 16.8(e), Meredith needed the Court of Appeals’ authorization to add grounds for relief after the one-year deadline. See RAP 16.8(e) ; RCW 10.73.090(1). This is incorrect.
¶ 9 Under our Rules of Appellate Procedure, "a petitioner can amend an initial PRP and raise new grounds for relief, without requesting a formal amendment, as long as the brief is timely filed and the new issue is adequately raised." In re Pers. Restraint of Rhem , 188 Wash.2d 321, 327, 394 P.3d 367 (2017). Meredith’s first supplemental brief, filed in January 2015, was filed prior to his one-year deadline of February 28, 2015, and adequately raised the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Court of Appeals properly considered Meredith’s supplemental filings.
¶ 10 The State argues that Meredith’s appellate counsel’s failure to raise the peremptory challenge issue on direct appeal was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lupastean
...loss of a peremptory challenge is structural error, was "more limited" than its broad language suggested. In re Pers. Restraint of Meredith , 191 Wash.2d 300, 310, 422 P.3d 458 (2018). We reasoned that the issue presented in Vreen was not merely related to the rule-based right to peremptory......
-
State v. Booth
...was constitutional and fundamental in magnitude. Years later, the United States Supreme Court in Rivera 87 and our Supreme Court in Matter of Meredith 88 concluded it was not. Because Rivera and Meredith clearly and decisively held peremptory strikes are not part of the constitutional struc......
- In re Schorr
-
State v. Fletcher
...was the issue, Mr. Fletcher could have amended his first petition after obtaining a copy. RAP 16.8(e) ; In re Pers. Restraint of Meredith , 191 Wash.2d 300, 422 P.3d 458 (2018). Instead, he waited almost three years after receiving a copy of the judgment before filing a second motion for re......