Court Opinion

ID: 9898038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:28:00.409873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:52.172654
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
                                                                                                      Filed
                                                                                                Washington State
                                                                                                Court of Appeals
                                                                                                 Division Two
          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                                                                                February 22, 2023
                                                 DIVISION II
              JOHN GARRETT SMITH,                                              No. 56563-3-II

                                           Appellant,

                     v.                                            ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
                                                                 RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING
              J.C. MILLER,                                            MOTION TO PUBLISH

                                           Respondent.

                    Respondent J.C. Miller moves to publish the opinion filed January 31, 2023 in

          this case and appellant Smith moves for reconsideration. Upon consideration, the court

          denies the motion for reconsideration and grants the motion to publish. Accordingly, it is

          SO ORDERED.

          PANEL: Jj. Glasgow, Che, Birk1

          FOR THE COURT:

                                                                        BIRK, J.

          1
              Judge Birk is serving in Division II of this court pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
                                                                                                     Filed
                                                                                               Washington State
                                                                                               Court of Appeals
                                                                                                Division Two

                                                                                                January 31, 2023

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

              JOHN GARRETT SMITH,
                                                                   No. 56563-3-II
                             Petitioner,
                                                                   DIVISION TWO
                             v.
                                                                   UNPUBLISHED OPINION
              J.C. MILLER,

                             Respondent.

                    BIRK, J.2 – John Garrett Smith appeals the superior court’s dismissal of his habeas

          corpus petition. Because Smith’s habeas corpus petition is a collateral attack, the superior

          court must follow the procedures set forth in CrR 7.8. Because, in this setting, the superior

          court should not have reached the merits of Smith’s petition, the order dismissing the

          habeas corpus petition is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the superior court for

          further action.

                                                         I

                    After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Smith of attempted second degree

          murder and second degree assault. Smith’s convictions arose from a 2013 attack on his

          wife that left her with severe injuries. State v. Smith, 189 Wn.2d 655, 657, 405 P.3d 997

          (2017). Smith appealed. State v. Smith, 196 Wn. App. 224, 230, 382 P.3d 721 (2016),

          rev’d, Smith, 189 Wn.2d at 667. The Court of Appeals upheld his second degree assault

          conviction but reversed his attempted second degree murder conviction. Id. at 239. Our

          2
              Judge Birk is serving in Division II of this court pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

          No. 56563-3-II/3

          Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the attempted murder conviction. Smith, 189

          Wn.2d at 667. The matter became final on October 2018 after the United States Supreme

          Court denied certiorari. Smith v. Washington, 139 S. Ct. 324, 202 L. Ed. 2d 227 (2018).

          Smith then filed numerous petitions for collateral relief both in state and federal courts.

                 In June 2021, Smith filed a habeas corpus petition in Clark County Superior Court

          against J.C. Miller, superintendent of the corrections center where Smith is incarcerated.

          Smith alleged that the superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his

          criminal prosecution. Smith based this argument on a claim that the amended information

          in the original prosecution was not accompanied by a further judicial finding of probable

          cause. As courts ruled in both Smith’s state personal restraint petition (PRP) and his federal

          habeas corpus petition, Washington law recognizes no such requirement.

                 Miller responded that the petition should be dismissed or, in the alternative,

          transferred to the Court of Appeals under CrR 7.8. During the hearing on Smith’s petition,

          Smith also referenced CrR 7.8. However, instead of transferring the matter to this court,

          the superior court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petition was time barred,

          successive under RCW 10.73.140, and raised matters that were precluded under principles

          of claim and issue preclusion. Smith appeals.

                                                        II

                 A collateral attack on a criminal judgment and sentence is subject to specific

          procedural rules. State v. Molnar, 198 Wn.2d 500, 508, 497 P.3d 858 (2021). Collateral

          attacks filed in superior court are governed by CrR 7.8. A habeas corpus petition is

          considered a collateral attack. RCW 10.73.090(2). CrR 7.8 “applies to habeas corpus

                                                        3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

          No. 56563-3-II/4

          petitions filed in the superior court which seek postconviction relief, if not directly then by

          analogy.” Toliver v. Olsen, 109 Wn.2d 607, 612-13, 746 P.2d 809 (1987).

                 CrR 7.8(c)(2) requires the superior court to transfer a collateral attack to this court

          for consideration as a PRP “ ‘unless the court determines that the motion is not barred by

          RCW 10.73.090 and either (i) the defendant has made a substantial showing that [they are]

          entitled to relief or (ii) resolution of the motion will require a factual hearing.’ ” State v.

          Smith, 144 Wn. App. 860, 863, 184 P.3d 666 (2008) (quoting CrR 7.8(c)). It is mandatory

          for a superior court to transfer an untimely collateral attack to this court without reaching

          the merits. Molnar, 198 Wn.2d at 509.

                 If the superior court fails to comply with CrR 7.8(c)(2), the proper recourse is to

          remand the matter for the superior court to consider the CrR 7.8(c)(2) criteria and to follow

          the proper procedures. In re Pers. Restraint of Ruiz-Sanabria, 184 Wn.2d 632, 642, 362

          P.3d 758 (2015). As our Supreme Court has emphasized, “[W]e must reiterate how

          important it is for superior courts to process motions for postconviction relief in accordance

          with CrR 7.8(c).” Molnar, 198 Wn.2d at 521.

                 Here, the superior court determined that Smith’s challenge to his judgment and

          sentence was time barred, i.e., that the challenge was barred by RCW 10.73.090. Once the

          court made that determination, the court was foreclosed from reaching the merits under

          CrR 7.8 and was required to transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals as a PRP under

          CrR 7.8(c)(2).

                 Smith attempts to avoid this conclusion on the ground that he challenges the subject

          matter jurisdiction of the court in which he was convicted, thus, he says, bringing his

                                                        4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

          No. 56563-3-II/5

          petition within the scope of the constitutionally preserved writ of habeas corpus and within

          the exceptions to RCW 10.73.090. Cf. Molnar, 198 Wn.2d at 509 (“Molnar did not assert

          that any statutory exception to the one-year time limit applied.”); In re Pers. Restraint of

          Adams, 178 Wn.2d 417, 424, 309 P.3d 451 (2013) (analyzing condition that judgment and

          sentence be “valid on its face”); Toliver, 109 Wn.2d at 611 (“[T]he personal restraint rules

          do not affect the habeas corpus jurisdiction of superior courts, even in postconviction

          review cases such as this one.”). But Smith’s claim is not cognizable as a challenge to

          subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding his attaching that label to it.

                 Washington decisions have declined to entertain such challenges outside of the PRP

          framework when based on alleged errors that do not relate to the issue of subject matter

          jurisdiction. In re Pers. Restraint of Richey, 162 Wn.2d 865, 872, 175 P.3d 585 (2008)

          (“[W]hile the one-year time limit on collateral attack does not apply to sentences in excess

          of the court’s jurisdiction, a sentence is not jurisdictionally defective merely because it is

          in violation of a statute or is based on a misinterpretation of a statute.”); State v. Dorenbos,

          113 Wn. App. 494, 497, 60 P.3d 1213 (2002) (“A restitution order entered beyond 60 days

          is merely voidable, not void for lack of jurisdiction.”); In re Pers. Restraint of Vehlewald,

          92 Wn. App. 197, 201, 963 P.2d 903 (1998) (“We reject Vehlewald’s argument that an

          incorrect offender score calculation, based on an erroneous same criminal conduct finding,

          implicates the jurisdiction of the trial court.”). Accordingly, Smith’s challenge was

          required to be construed as a PRP, was subject to RCW 10.73.090, and was subject to CrR

          7.8.

                                                         5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

          No. 56563-3-II/6

                                                       III

                  We vacate the order dismissing Smith’s habeas corpus petition, and remand to the

          superior court with instructions to construe Smith’s petition as a PRP and transfer it to the

          Court of Appeals pursuant to CrR 7.8(c)(2).3

                  A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

          Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

          2.06.040, it is so ordered.

                                                         BIRK, J.
          WE CONCUR:

          __________________________                     ______________________________
          GLASGOW, C.J.                                  CHE, J.

          3
           Smith filed a statement of additional grounds for review raising issues involving the
          probable cause affidavit and the amount of his bail. Based on our disposition of this matter,
          we do not reach these issues.

                                                        6