Opinion ID: 3158034
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Khan fails to establish prejudice

Text: To obtain relief in a PRP on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged Strickland standard. In re Pers. Restraint of Crace, 174 Wn.2d 835, 846-47, 280 P.3d 1102 (2012). First, a petitioner must show that his attorney's performance was deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 77-78,917 P.2d 563 (1996). Second, a petitioner must establish prejudice by showing that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, there is 4 In re Pers. Restraint ofKhan, No. 89657-7 (Fairhurst, J. dissenting) a reasonable probability that the result would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d at 78. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. If the petitioner fails to meet one of the prongs, the inquiry ends and we need not analyze the case further. Crace, 174 Wn.2d at 847 (holding the petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland and therefore declining to address whether counsel's performance was deficient). Khan fails to demonstrate how his counsel's failure to provide an interpreter prejudiced him or impacted the outcome of his case. He generally asserts that the lack of an interpreter injured his credibility. But Khan does not present any analysis or argument that his credibility would have been significantly improved with an interpreter. Further, it is more likely that his credibility was injured from evidence produced at trial, such as the testimony from Eram Mirza and Sanober Mirza that they both saw Khan standing near R.H. with an erection. This was highly relevant and consistent with R.H. 's allegations of abuse. R.H. and Eram also testified to the negative backlash they received from their cultural and religious community as a result of their decision to testify against a family member. This testimony lent significant credibility to their allegations, as the jury would not likely believe that R.H. and Eram would endure such disapproval if the allegations were false. Khan 5 In re Pers. Restraint ofKhan, No. 89657-7 (Fairhurst, J. dissenting) does not explain how an interpreter would have impacted his credibility in a way that could influence the result of his trial. Khan does not otherwise claim that the outcome of his case would have been different had he been provided an interpreter. As the majority acknowledges, Khan discusses prejudice only at a very high level of abstraction ... rather than drilling down into how the lack of an interpreter caused him prejudice by demonstrating what specifically he would have done differently had he understood the proceedings or questions. Majority at 12. He does not explain what particular aspects of his proceedings he did not understand, nor does he state any other evidence he would have provided had he been aided by an interpreter. Although his allocution at sentencing was strained, Khan does not now indicate that he would have stated anything differently with the assistance of an interpreter. Moreover, the trial transcript reveals that when I Khan has not shown how he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's decision to not secure an interpreter. He simply fails to produce any argument that shakes confidence in the outcome of the trial. 6 In re Pers. Restraint ofKhan, No. 89657-7 (Fairhurst, J. dissenting) The majority gives Khan the opportunity to show prejudice at a reference hearing. Majority at 12. But this is not the purpose of a reference hearing. Khan must at least demonstrate that he has some sort of genuine factual dispute to resolve on the issue; the reference hearing should not be a new forum to determine whether the petitioner actually has evidence to support his allegations. Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 886. Khan has failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland or even raise a factual dispute on the matter.