Opinion ID: 2621822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The RCW 10.73.100(6) Exception to the One-Year Statute of Limitation

Text: If Stoudmire meets the requirements in RCW 10.73.100(6), his PRP is not time barred. This statutory exception to the one-year time limit applies when: There has been a significant change in the law, whether substantive or procedural, which is material to the conviction, sentence, or other order entered in a criminal or civil proceeding instituted by the state or local government, and either the legislature has expressly provided that the change in the law is to be applied retroactively, or a court, in interpreting a change in the law that lacks express legislative intent regarding retroactive application, determines that sufficient reasons exist to require retroactive application of the changed legal standard. RCW 10.73.100(6) (emphasis added). Thus, to take advantage of this exception, Stoudmire must show a(1) significant change in the law, (2) material to his conviction, and (3) the changed legal standard applies retroactively. Although Justice Chambers concludes Stoudmire is not time barred under RCW 10.73.100(6), he does not consider all the inherent requirements in the statute. [1] He only analyzes the significant change in the law requirement, and I concur wholeheartedly with his reasoning and conclusion. See concurrence at 1010-1011. As to the remaining requirements, I believe materiality is clearly present and needs little discussion. [2] I examine retroactivity next. See In re Pers. Restraint of Crabtree, 141 Wash.2d 577, 584, 9 P.3d 814 (2000) (The significant change in the law must be retroactive.).