In re the Personal Restraint of Crawford

150 Wash. App. 787
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJune 10, 2009
DocketNo. 37237-1-II
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 150 Wash. App. 787 (In re the Personal Restraint of Crawford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Personal Restraint of Crawford, 150 Wash. App. 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinions

Bridgewater, J.

¶1 The issue before us in this personal restraint petition is whether Darnell Keeno Crawford received ineffective assistance of counsel. We hold that Crawford’s counsel’s failure to challenge Crawford’s non-comparable Kentucky offense was prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel that led to Crawford’s designation as a persistent offender and his related life sentence. We grant his petition, reverse his persistent offender status, and remand for resentencing.

FACTS

¶2 On December 26, 2002, Crawford stole a portable music player from a Tacoma Best Buy store. State v. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d 86, 89, 147 P.3d 1288 (2006). Crawford showed a handgun to the store employees who attempted to pursue him into the parking lot. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 89.

¶3 The State charged Crawford with first degree robbery and second degree assault. The State calculated Crawford’s offender score as five for each count. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 90. At a January 2003 pretrial conference, the State provided Crawford with a criminal history compilation reflecting only Crawford’s Pierce County convictions. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 90-91. The State offered to recom[791]*791mend a sentence at the low end of the standard range, 57 to 75 months, in exchange for Crawford’s guilty plea. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91. Crawford did not accept the offer because the most he could potentially face if he lost at trial was 75 months. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91.

¶4 By February 2003, the State learned of Crawford’s Kentucky criminal history and provided Crawford with a new criminal history compilation. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91. But, neither party investigated the Kentucky convictions at that time. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91. The parties did not engage in further plea negotiations, and Crawford proceeded to trial still believing that his standard range was 57 to 75 months. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91.

¶5 A jury found Crawford guilty on both counts. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91. Several weeks after trial, the State thoroughly reviewed Crawford’s Kentucky sex abuse conviction and determined it qualified as a strike offense equivalent to the Washington crime of first degree child molestation. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91. The State then informed Crawford that because he had two previous strikes, he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA), RCW 9.94A.570. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91.

¶6 Crawford retained new counsel and filed a posttrial motion, asking the trial court to dismiss or, alternatively, for a new trial. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91. At the hearing, Crawford testified that had he known before trial that he faced a life sentence, he would have accepted the State’s offer. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 91-92. His trial counsel testified that she assumed that Crawford’s Kentucky sex abuse conviction was a misdemeanor because the State had not provided notice of his persistent offender status. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 92. A mitigation specialist testified that had she known that Crawford potentially faced a third strike, she would have prepared a mitigation package. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 92. The specialist presented testimony that the State had accepted mitigation packages in the 12 other cases for which she prepared them for cases [792]*792where individuals faced potential third strikes. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 92. The trial court denied Crawford’s motion and, based on Crawford’s previous criminal convictions, sentenced him to a life sentence without parole under the POAA. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 92.

¶ 7 Crawford appealed, contending that due process required the State to provide pretrial notice that he faced a mandatory life sentence and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to examine his out-of-state conviction and advise him that, if convicted, he faced a life sentence. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 89. We vacated the trial court’s judgment, holding that Crawford was denied procedural due process and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Crawford, 128 Wn. App. 376, 384-85,115 P.3d 387 (2005), overruled by Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 89.

¶8 Our Supreme Court reversed our decision and reinstated Crawford’s persistent offender status, holding that due process did not require pretrial notice of persistent offender status. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 102-03. The Crawford court further held that although Crawford established that trial counsel’s performance was deficient, Crawford failed to establish prejudice. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 102-03.

¶9 Crawford now collaterally attacks his persistent offender status and his sentence of life without parole.

ANALYSIS

Standard op Review

¶10 Crawford’s timely collateral attack involves the question of constitutionally guaranteed effective assistance of counsel. A criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). In order to prove ineffective assistance, a defendant [793]*793must show (1) that defense counsel’s representation was deficient, that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all of the circumstances and (2) that defense counsel’s deficient representation prejudiced the defendant, that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the results of the proceeding would have differed. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). The defendant must establish both deficient representation and prejudice to prevail. Crawford, 159 Wn.2d at 97. We are highly deferential to counsel’s performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.

Comparability

¶11 Because Crawford’s challenge involves an allegation that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, Crawford must establish prejudice by showing that the legal grounds for a comparability challenge were meritorious, i.e., that his Kentucky conviction is not comparable to any Washington crime. See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986). He must also show that the sentence would have differed had his counsel objected. See Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 375.

¶12 Crawford contends that his replacement counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the comparability of his Kentucky sex abuse conviction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of Washington v. Kevin Wade Zimmerman
566 P.3d 855 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2025)
In the Matter of the Detention of: Bruce Austin
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2023
State Of Washington v. M.d.
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2020
State Of Washington v. Laronzo Deshon Murphy
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2015
State Of Washington v. Dontrail Latham
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2014
State v. Latham
335 P.3d 960 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2014)
State v. Calhoun
257 P.3d 693 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 Wash. App. 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-personal-restraint-of-crawford-washctapp-2009.