In re Pers. Restraint Petition of Schreiber

Decision Date28 July 2015
Docket NumberNo. 40553–9–II.,40553–9–II.
Citation189 Wash.App. 110,357 P.3d 668
PartiesIn the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of Robin Taylor SCHREIBER, Petitioner.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

189 Wash.App. 110
357 P.3d 668

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of Robin Taylor SCHREIBER, Petitioner.

No. 40553–9–II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

July 28, 2015.


357 P.3d 669

Jeffrey Erwin Ellis, Oregon Capital Resource Center, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.

Anne Mowry Cruser, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, Vancouver, WA, for Respondent.

PART PUBLISHED OPINION

WORSWICK, P.J.

189 Wash.App. 111

¶ 1 After a jury trial, Robin Schreiber was convicted of second degree murder with a firearm sentencing enhancement. He received an exceptional sentence because his victim was a law enforcement officer. Schreiber argues, among other things, that the trial court violated his right to a public trial. In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that Schreiber fails to establish actual and substantial prejudice resulting from any courtroom closure. In the

189 Wash.App. 112

unpublished portion of this opinion, we hold that Schreiber fails to establish any other claim of unlawful restraint. Accordingly, we deny his personal restraint petition.

FACTS

¶ 2 Robin Schreiber was convicted of second degree murder in the 2004 death of Clark County Sheriff's Sergeant Brad Crawford. Some aspects of his trial were shielded from the public view. First, during jury selection, the trial court gave prospective jurors a confidential questionnaire. We assume arguendo that these jury questionnaires were filed under seal.1 Second, in response to a report that two prospective jurors saw Schreiber in handcuffs in the hallway, the trial court and counsel for both parties privately questioned the prospective jurors in chambers, after Schreiber's counsel waived Schreiber's right to be present. Third, according to Schreiber, spectators were excluded from the courtroom during voir dire due to a lack of space. And fourth, according to Schreiber, the trial court directed the bailiff to speak privately with an empaneled juror.

¶ 3 A jury ultimately found Schreiber guilty of intentional second degree murder. Schreiber appealed, and we affirmed in an unpublished decision. This personal restraint petition followed.

ANALYSIS

Personal Restraint Petition Principles

¶ 4 When considering constitutional arguments raised in a personal restraint petition, we determine whether the petitioner can show that a constitutional error caused actual and substantial prejudice. In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, 182 Wash.2d 115, 119, 340 P.3d 810 (2014)

189 Wash.App. 113

plurality opinion). A stricter standard governs our consideration of nonconstitutional arguments raised in a personal restraint petition. When considering nonconstitutional arguments, we determine whether the petitioner has established that the claimed error is “a fundamental defect resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice.” In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 177 Wash.2d 1, 18, 296 P.3d 872 (2013).

¶ 5 A personal restraint petition must state with particularity the factual allegations underlying the petitioner's claim of unlawful restraint. In re Pers. Restraint of Rice, 118 Wash.2d 876, 885–86, 828 P.2d 1086 (1992). Bald assertions and conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Rice, 118 Wash.2d at 886, 828 P.2d 1086.

357 P.3d 670

¶ 6 Petitioner's allegations must also have evidentiary support. Rice, 118 Wash.2d at 886, 828 P.2d 1086. If the trial court record does not support the factual allegations, then the petitioner must show through affidavits or other forms of corroboration that competent and admissible evidence will establish the factual allegations. Rice, 118 Wash.2d at 886, 828 P.2d 1086. The petitioner may not rely on mere speculation, conjecture, or inadmissible hearsay. Rice, 118 Wash.2d at 886, 828 P.2d 1086. A personal restraint petition cannot renew an issue that was raised and rejected on direct appeal, unless the interests of justice require the issue's relitigation. In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wash.2d 647, 671, 101 P.3d 1 (2004).

¶ 7 If the petitioner fails to make a prima facie showing of either actual and substantial prejudice or a fundamental defect, we deny the personal restraint petition. Yates, 177 Wash.2d at 17–18, 296 P.3d 872. If the petitioner makes such a showing, but the record is not sufficient to determine the merits, we remand for a reference hearing. Yates, 177 Wash.2d at 17–18, 296 P.3d 872. If, however, we are convinced the petitioner has proven actual and substantial prejudice or a fundamental defect, we grant the petition. Yates, 177 Wash.2d at 17–18, 296 P.3d 872.

189 Wash.App. 114

Right to a Public Trial

¶ 8 Schreiber argues that he is entitled to relief from restraint because the trial court violated his right to a public trial by closing the proceedings without conducting the analysis required by State v. Bone–Club, 128 Wash.2d 254, 258–59, 906 P.2d 325 (1995). We disagree, holding that Schreiber fails to make out a prima facie showing of actual and substantial prejudice caused by any closure.

¶ 9 The Washington Constitution protects a criminal defendant's right to a public trial. Wash. Const. art. I, § 22. A trial court may close a courtroom only if closure is warranted under the five-part test set forth in Bone–Club, 128 Wash.2d at 258–59, 906 P.2d 325. Closing a courtroom without first conducting the required Bone–Club analysis is a structural error. State v. Paumier, 176 Wash.2d 29, 35, 288 P.3d 1126 (2012).

A. Actual and Substantial Prejudice Standard

¶ 10 On direct review, a public trial violation requires reversal regardless of whether the defendant has shown prejudice. Paumier, 176 Wash.2d at 37, 288 P.3d 1126. But in a personal restraint petition, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that a constitutional violation caused actual and substantial prejudice. Coggin, 182 Wash.2d at 119, 340 P.3d 810 (plurality opinion).

¶ 11 In Coggin and Speight, our Supreme Court recently held that a petitioner must show actual and substantial prejudice to prevail on collateral review of an alleged public trial violation. Coggin, 182 Wash.2d at 120–22, 340 P.3d 810 (plurality opinion); In re Pers. Restraint of Speight, 182 Wash.2d 103, 107, 340 P.3d 207 (2014) (plurality opinion). In both Coggin and Speight, Chief Justice Madsen filed concurring opinions agreeing with the decision to deny the petitions, but on the ground that the petitioners invited the closure. Coggin, 182 Wash.2d at 123, 340 P.3d 810 (Madsen, C.J., concurring); Speight, 182 Wash.2d at 108, 340 P.3d 207 (Madsen, C.J., concurring). Chief Justice

189 Wash.App. 115

Madsen made clear, however, that she agreed with the plurality that a petitioner must show actual and substantial prejudice to prevail on a public trial claim on collateral review. Coggin, 182 Wash.2d at 123, 340 P.3d 810 (Madsen, C.J., concurring); Speight, 182 Wash.2d at 108, 340 P.3d 207 (Madsen, C.J., concurring). Thus, Coggin and Speight require a petitioner to make a showing of actual and substantial prejudice resulting from a public trial violation to prevail on collateral review.

B. Schreiber Fails To Show Actual and Substantial Prejudice

¶ 12 Schreiber claims that the trial court violated his right to a public trial four times, by failing to conduct Bone–Club hearings before (1) giving prospective jurors confidential questionnaires that were later filed under

357 P.3d 671

seal, (2) excluding spectators from voir dire due to a lack of space in the courtroom, (3) questioning two prospective jurors in chambers, and (4) directing the bailiff to speak privately with a juror during the trial. It is undisputed that the trial court conducted no Bone–Club hearings.

¶ 13 But even assuming closures occurred, Schreiber neither argues nor demonstrates that any of these closures caused him actual and substantial prejudice. Schreiber argues only that these closures were structural errors requiring reversal. Because Schreiber is required to demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice, his public trial arguments fail.2 Coggin, 182 Wash.2d at 122, 340 P.3d 810.

¶ 14 For these reasons and those stated in the unpublished portion of this opinion, we deny Schreiber's petition.

¶ 15 A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder

189 Wash.App. 116

shall be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS

¶ 16 Schreiber also argues that we should grant his personal restraint petition because (1) the trial court violated his right to be present; (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that a forensic expert's testimony violated Schreiber's right to confront the witnesses against him; (3) newly discovered evidence of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • State v. K.A.B.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 25, 2020
    ... ... assault conviction, both through a personal 475 P.3d 221 restraint petition and a direct appeal, which we have consolidated for review. 14 ... In re Pers. Restraint of Dove , 196 Wash. App. 148, 154, 381 P.3d 1280 (2016). The ... See id. at 17, 296 P.3d 872 ; In re Pers. Restraint of Schreiber , 189 Wash. App. 110, 113, 357 P.3d 668 (2015). Second, if the petitioner ... ...
  • In re Caldellis
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 15, 2016
    ... 187 Wash.2d 127 385 P.3d 135 IN RE the Personal Restraint of Noel Evan CALDELLIS, Petitioner. No. 89585-6 Supreme Court of ... Accordingly, we dismiss his personal restraint petition as meritless. BACKGROUND 2 One fall night in September 2006, Caldellis ... Order of Dismissal, In re Pers. Restraint of Caldellis , No. 6709051 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2013) ... Restraint of Schreiber , 189 Wash.App. 110, 357 P.3d 668 (2015). Schreiber, like Caldellis, ... ...
  • In re Amos
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 12, 2017
    ... 406 P.3d 707 In the MATTER OF the Personal Restraint of: Forrest AMOS, Petitioner. No. 48430-7-II Court of Appeals of ... of this opinion we address whether this personal restraint petition (PRP) was timely filed and whether it is precluded by Amos' collateral ... Amos' guilty plea states that he "waives rights to file appeals and pers[onal] rest[raint] petitions in this matter." CP at 60. Amos' initials ... In re Pers. Restraint of Schreiber , 189 Wash.App. 110, 113, 357 P.3d 668 (2015) ; Woods , 154 Wash.2d at ... ...
  • State v. Weaver
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 9, 2021
    ...petitioner has proved actual and substantial prejudice or a fundamental defect. In re Pers. Restraint of Schreiber, 189 Wn.App. 110, 113, 357 P.3d 668 (2015). B. Admission of Knife and Alleged Gun Weaver claims that the trial court erred in admitting the knife and the alleged gun without an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT