Opinion ID: 1367567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Finality of Decisions

Text: Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's challenge to the constitutional validity of his 1976 conviction on the basis of finality. [45] Petitioner argues that his conviction was not yet final within the context of the Supreme Court's definition of final as it applies to retroactivity analysis. He thus seeks retroactive application of State v. Roberts . [46] This court in In re St. Pierre [47] recently explained the rules governing finality of decisions. In St. Pierre, the petitioner sought retroactive application of State v. Irizarry [48] in which this court concluded that felony murder is not an included offense under aggravated first degree murder and that the trial court's instruction treating it as such was prejudicial error requiring a new trial. [2] After the decision in Irizarry, Petitioner St. Pierre filed a personal restraint petition seeking retroactive application of Irizarry to his case. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, stating that the conviction was final as to the trial court's instruction treating felony murder as an included offense when Irizarry was decided and that Mr. St. Pierre failed to satisfy the requirements for collateral attack on his conviction. This court, in articulating a definition of finality, stated that: The [United States] Supreme Court defines final for the purposes of retroactivity analysis as follows: By final, we mean a case in which a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied. .... We interpret the Supreme Court's language to contemplate the finality of the case as a whole, not the finality of a single issue. We reject any notion an issue may become final for the purposes of retroactivity analysis before the finality of the case as a whole.... Since this court announced the rule in Irizarry 8 days before denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, petitioner's conviction was not yet final and he is entitled to retroactive application of the rule.[ [49] ] State v. Roberts, supra , [50] was decided on February 24, 1977, more than a year before petitioner's case was decided by the Court of Appeals on August 3, 1978. Because final means exhaustion of appeal of a judgment of conviction and elapse of the time for a petition for certiorari or denial of that petition, Petitioner Summers' case was not final under St. Pierre. Indeed, the Court of Appeals cited State v. Roberts, supra , in rejecting a claim concerning impermissible evidentiary presumptions contained in jury instructions. [51] The Court of Appeals did not, however, cite Roberts in its consideration of petitioner's challenge to the jury instructions on self-defense. In retrospect, it appears that the relevance of the holding in Roberts to Mr. Summers' case was not considered by that court. In any event, finality does not bar Mr. Summers' challenge in this case.