Opinion ID: 2534191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: significant change in the law

Text: ¶ 19 Because this is not Lavery's first PRP, and was filed more than one year after his conviction and sentence was final, Lavery must first show that his PRP is not time-barred or barred as successive. See RCW 10.73.090; RAP 16.3-16.15. Since the applicable exception to both the time bar and bar against successive petitions hinges on whether Freeburg represents a change in the law, we address that question. ¶ 20 [W]here an intervening opinion has effectively overturned a prior appellate decision that was originally determinative of a material issue, the intervening opinion constitutes a `significant change in the law....' In re Pers. Restraint of Greening, 141 Wash.2d 687, 697, 9 P.3d 206 (2000). One test to determine whether an [intervening case] represents a significant change in the law is whether the defendant could have argued this issue before publication of the decision. In re Pers. Restraint of Stoudmire, 145 Wash.2d 258, 264, 36 P.3d 1005 (2002). ¶ 21 The argument that federal bank robbery and robbery in Washington are not comparable was not meaningfully available to Lavery before Freeburg. Freeburg changed the comparability analysis for robbery. In Mutch, the defendant's federal bank robbery indictment had charged him with entering a bank and taking money from a teller using `force, violence, and intimidation.' Mutch, 87 Wash.App. at 438, 942 P.2d 1018. The Mutch court determined that despite the fact that the use of force requirement under the federal statute was broader than under the state statute, the language in the indictment was sufficient to meet the definition of the more narrow state statute. Id. at 437, 942 P.2d 1018. Because the federal indictment in Lavery's case contained nearly identical language, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Mutch controlled the comparability of the crimes as a matter of law. Thus, until Freeburg synthesized both Bunting and Carter and declared that the crimes are not necessarily comparable, the rule in Washington was that federal bank robbery and second degree robbery were comparable as a matter of law. ¶ 22 The Mutch court engaged in the comparability analysis endorsed by this court in Morley, 134 Wash.2d 588, 952 P.2d 167. The Mutch court, however, blurred the distinction between legal and factual comparability by ostensibly holding that where an indictment for federal bank robbery contains language similar to the language of which the Mutch court approved, the inquiry into comparability should cease. Morley stood for no such proposition. The legal and factual determinations are to be done separately. It is clear on their faces that federal bank robbery and robbery under Washington law are not legally comparable, and this was not confirmed until Freeburg effectively overruled Mutch in this regard. ¶ 23 In Carter, the United States Supreme Court upheld a defendant's conviction for federal bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) by holding that the statute required only proof of general intent with respect to the actus reus of the crime. The Court rejected the defendant's assertion that the statute required him to have the specific intent to steal. Carter, 530 U.S. at 268, 120 S.Ct. 2159. ¶ 24 In Bunting, a defendant was being sentenced under the POAA. One of his prior strike offenses was a conviction for robbery in Illinois. The court noted that while the allegedly comparable Washington crime, second degree robbery, required the nonstatutory element of intent to steal, the Illinois crime had only a general intent requirement. The Bunting court held that the crimes were not legally comparable. Bunting, 115 Wash.App. at 141, 61 P.3d 375. ¶ 25 In Freeburg, Scott Freeburg was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole under the POAA. Freeburg, 120 Wash.App. at 194, 84 P.3d 292. At sentencing, the sentencing court found that a prior federal bank robbery conviction was comparable to second degree robbery and was a strike under the POAA. Id. at 197, 84 P.3d 292. After examining Carter and Bunting, the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the elements of the two crimes were not legally comparable and ordered Freeburg to be resentenced. Id. at 194, 84 P.3d 292. ¶ 26 Because Freeburg effectively corrected the error of the Mutch analysis, it represents a material change in the law. The Freeburg court disposed of the defendant's claim in precisely the same fashion advocated by Lavery in his direct appeal. Before Freeburg, however, that argument was unavailable to Lavery as it had been foreclosed by Mutch. Thus, Freeburg represents a significant change in the law. Under Freeburg, Lavery's federal bank robbery conviction was not necessarily a strike offense and he, therefore, may not have been properly sentenced to life in prison without parole. ¶ 27 Generally, a PRP filed more than one year after judgment and sentence are final is barred. RCW 10.73.090(1). In cases in which there has been a significant change in the law that is material to the conviction and sentence, however, the one year time limit does not apply. RCW 10.73.100(6). Because Freeburg represents a significant change in the law that was material to Lavery's sentence, we hold that his PRP is not time barred. ¶ 28 The State asserts that this petition is barred as successive. The prohibition on successive PRPs found in RCW 10.73.140 limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals but does not limit this court's jurisdiction. Stoudmire, 145 Wash.2d at 262-63, 36 P.3d 1005 (footnotes omitted) (citing In re Pers. Restraint of Johnson, 131 Wash.2d 558, 565, 933 P.2d 1019 (1997)). RAP 16.4(d), however, bars consideration of a second petition requesting similar relief unless the petitioner can show good cause. Stoudmire, 145 Wash.2d at 263, 36 P.3d 1005. This bar includes PRPs. In re Pers. Restraint of Becker, 143 Wash.2d 491, 496, 20 P.3d 409 (2001). Good cause is shown where the petitioner demonstrates that a material intervening change in the law has occurred. In re Pers. Restraint of Jeffries, 114 Wash.2d 485, 488, 789 P.2d 731 (1990). ¶ 29 Because we find that Freeburg represents a material intervening change in the law, we hold that Lavery has shown good cause, and that his PRP is not barred as successive.