Wright v. Morris
| Decision Date | 02 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | 43630,Nos. 43591,43650 and 43651,43638,s. 43591 |
| Citation | 540 P.2d 893,85 Wn.2d 899 |
| Parties | Richard WRIGHT, Jr., Petitioner, v. Charles MORRIS, Secretary, Department of Social and Health Services for the State of Washington, Respondent. The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Jack Elwood WILSON et al., Petitioners. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Richard L. Phillips, Prison Legal Services Project, Shelton, Allen M. Ressler, Richard Emery, Prison Legal Services Project, Seattle, for appellants.
Christopher T. Bayley, King County Pros. Atty. Bellevue, Daniel J. Berschauer, Seattle, Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., William Collins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondents.
These cases were heard together upon procedural questions only. In each case the petitioner's application for post-conviction relief was denied in the Court of Appeals upon the ground that it was patently frivolous, and in each case the petitioner sought review of the order in this court.
Since the adoption of CrR 7.7, this court has twice had occasion to comment upon the rule. State v. Rolax, 84 Wash.2d 836, 529 P.2d 1078 (1974), and Holt v. Morris, 84 Wash.2d 841, 529 P.2d 1081 (1974). The procedure being a new one, all of the problems which might arise out of it were not foreseen at its inception. It is inevitable that there must be some refinements, clarification and modification if the rule is to achieve its purpose of simplifying and expediting post-conviction remedies. Problems which have been presented to the court in the argument of these consolidated questions, as well as in the study of other cases which have arisen, have led us to conclude that the rule should be modified and clarified in certain respects. For ease of reference, we quote the rule:
(a) Petition. A petition for post-conviction relief may be filed by a person under any disability resulting from a sentence or order of a court who claims a right to relief upon the ground that such disability was imposed in violation of the Constitution or Laws of the United States or of the State of Washington or is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Such petition shall be directed to the chief judge of the court of appeals in the district in which the court that imposed the sentence or order is located and shall be filed on a standard form approved by the Supreme Court and appearing as section (j) of this rule.
(b) Prompt Hearing. If the petition appears to have any basis in fact or law, or is not on its face frivolous, the chief judge shall cause the petition to be transmitted to the superior court in which the petitioner was originally tried for a prompt hearing on the merits of the petitioner's claim.
(c) Hearing Judge. The hearing on the petition in the superior court may be before any judge except the judge who imposed the sentence or other order, unless the petitioner assents to a hearing before such judge.
(d) Purpose of Hearing. The purpose of the hearing will be to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to release or other appropriate relief. The rules of evidence applicable at trial shall be followed at this hearing.
(e) Right to Counsel. The petitioner may be represented by counsel at such hearing, and where the court finds that the petitioner is indigent, counsel shall be provided at the state's expense.
(f) Presence of Petitioner. A court may hear the petition without requiring the presence of the petitioner at the hearing. Upon timely motion and a showing of good cause, the court may order the petitioner's presence at the hearing.
(g) Relief upon Proper Finding. If at the hearing on the petition the court finds:
(1) That the conviction was obtained or sentence or order imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State of Washington; or
(2) that the court entering the sentence or order was without jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner or the subject matter; or
(3) that material facts exist not theretofore presented and heard, which require vacation of the conviction, sentence or other order in the interest of justice; or
(4) that there has been a significant change in law, whether substantive or procedural, material to the conviction, sentence or other order and sufficient reasons exist to require retroactive application of the changed legal standard, it shall order the appropriate relief.
(h) Appeal. Either party may appeal the ruling of the superior court. The appeal shall be governed by the rules of appeal in criminal matters. Counsel appointed by the superior court to represent an indigent shall continue to represent him on the appeal unless, for good cause shown, he is relieved by the court.
(i) Successive Motions. A second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner shall not be entertained without good cause shown.
CrR 7.7.
In State v. Rolax, supra, we said that the role of the chief judge, in passing upon a petition, is to determine whether it is frivolous upon its face, and not to delve beyond the face of the petition. The allegations in the petition in that case were made under paragraph (g)(3) of the rule, and thus raised fact questions. The petition was not patently frivolous, and we held that it should have been transmitted to the superior court for a hearing on the merits.
Our statements in that case concerning the chief judge's duty under the rule were appropriate under the circumstances of the case. However, we did not have in mind the impact of this interpretation in cases where the petition is not patently frivolous but may be shown to be so by reference to matters of record or of which the court can take judicial notice, or where the question raised involves no factual dispute but only a question of law. After consideration of these problems, we have reached the conclusion that the broad statement restricting the powers of the Court of Appeals was improvidently made and should be overruled. Likewise, Holt v. Morris, supra, should be overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with the rule as explained and modified herein.
When a petition for postconviction relief is filed with the Court of Appeals, the procedure shall be as follows:
(1) The chief judge shall examine the petition and if he finds it patently frivolous, he shall deny it. In all other circumstances, the chief judge shall call for an answer. The petitioner may petition to review an order denying his petition by certiorari, the petition to be filed within 15 days after the order is entered, as provided in ROA I--57(e) (1). If the petition is filed late due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, the court may, in its discretion, waive strict compliance with the time limitation. See Moore v. Burdman, 84 Wash.2d 408, 526 P.2d 893 (1974). The order of the Court of Appeals shall be defended by the prosecutor of the court in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Conaway v. Deane
-
In re Coats
...criminal cases. See Holt v. Morris, 84 Wash.2d 841, 844, 529 P.2d 1081 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Wright v. Morris, 85 Wash.2d 899, 540 P.2d 893 (1975); In re Pers. Restraint of Stoudmire, 141 Wash.2d 342, 351–52, 5 P.3d 1240 (2000), overruled in part by In re Pers. Restr......
-
Promaulayko v. Johns Manville Sales Corp.
...terms of these economic consequences, the principle of unjust enrichment, on which the Appellate Division relied, 224 N.J.Super. at 397, 540 P.2d 893, similarly supports the allocation of the risk to the distributor closest to the manufacturer. See Saint Barnabas Medical Center v. Essex Cou......
-
In re Turay
...of appeals." Holt v. Morris, 84 Wash.2d 841, 845 n. 1, 529 P.2d 1081 (1974),overruled in part on other grounds by Wright v. Morris, 85 Wash.2d 899, 540 P.2d 893 (1975); see Johnson,131 Wash.2d at 565,933 P.2d 1019. There are no other statutes granting such jurisdiction to the Court of Appea......
-
Washington's Equal Rights Amendment: it Says What it Means and it Means What it Says
...of the ERA in our constitution, and it is beyond the authority of this court to modify the people's will. So be it. Id. at 878, 540 P.2d at 893 (Hamilton, J., 82. Id. at 877, 540 P.2d at 893. ("[T]he WIAA rule discriminating against girls on account of their sex violates Const, art. 31 . . ......