Court Opinion

ID: 9909175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 17:13:09.797117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:10.726593
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                           Washington State
                                                                                           Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Division Two

                                                                                          December 12, 2023

       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                            DIVISION II
    In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of:                        No. 57212-5-II

    EDWIN CHAVEZ ZUNIGA,                                        UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                                  Petitioner.

          CHE, J. ⎯ In 2016, Edwin C. Zuniga pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree rape of a

child in Pierce County Superior Court cause number 15-1-01315-9. Count 1 was based on acts

Zuniga committed between the age of 20 and 21. Count 2 was based on acts Zuniga committed

between the age of 13 and 19. The trial court sentenced Zuniga to a SSOSA1, which was revoked

in 2019. Subsequently, Zuniga filed a CrR 7.8 motion for relief from judgment, which the trial

court transferred to this court for consideration as personal restraint petition.

          Zuniga argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court did not consider

mitigating factors relating to his youthfulness at the time of the crimes. He further argues that his

petition is not time barred because of a significant, material, retroactive change in the law. We

disagree and dismiss the petition as time-barred.

          RCW 10.73.090(1) requires that a petition be filed within one year of the date that the

petitioner’s judgment and sentence becomes final. Zuniga’s judgment and sentence became final

when it was filed on May 16, 2016. RCW 10.73.090(3)(a). Zuniga did not file this petition until

March 24, 2022, well over one year later. Thus, unless Zuniga established that one of the six

1
    Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA).
No. 57212-5-II

time-bar exceptions in RCW 10.73.100 applies to his argument or that his judgment and sentence

is facially invalid or was not entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, this petition is time

barred. RCW 10.73.090(1); RCW 10.73.100; In re Pers. Restraint of Hankerson, 149 Wn.2d

695, 702, 72 P.3d 703 (2003).

       Zuniga does not argue that his judgment and sentence is facially invalid or that it was not

rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Instead, he argues that this petition is not time

barred because State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1, 391 P.3d 409 (2017), and In re Personal

Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wn.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021), are significant, material,

retroactive changes in the law that qualify for the significant change in the law exception to the

time bar established in RCW 10.73.100(6).

       Zuniga was an adult when he committed count 1. Therefore, his reliance on Houston-

Sconiers fails as to that count because Houston-Sconiers’s holding is expressly limited to

juvenile defendants and Zuniga was not a juvenile when he committed that offense, so it is not

material to this petition. In re Pers. Restraint of Young, 21 Wn. App. 2d 826, 831-32, 508 P.3d

687, review denied, No. 1009585 (2022). Although Monschke extended Houston-Sconiers to

young adult offenders who were convicted of aggravated first degree murder and sentenced to a

mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole, our Supreme Court has not extended

Houston-Sconiers to young adult offenders who were convicted of other crimes and not

sentenced to mandatory life sentences. In re Pers. Restraint of Kennedy, 200 Wn.2d 1, 24-25,

513 P.3d 769 (2022); In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 200 Wn.2d 75, 81-83, 514 P.3d 653 (2022).

Accordingly, Zuniga does not establish a significant, material, retroactive change in the law or

any other time bar exception in RCW 10.73.100(2) as to count 1.

                                                  2
No. 57212-5-II

        The untimeliness of Zuniga’s challenge to count 1 is fatal to his petition. Zuniga may or

may not have been a juvenile when he committed count 2; he was between the age of 13 and 19.

But because Zuniga’s challenge to count 1 is untimely, his petition is at best “mixed,” meaning it

raises both untimely claims and claims that are exempt from the time limit under RCW

10.737.100. Mixed petitions must be dismissed. In re Pers. Restraint of Thomas, 180 Wn.2d 951,

953, 330 P.3d 158 (2014). Therefore, even assuming Zuniga can show that count 2 was

committed when he was a juvenile, his petition must nonetheless be dismissed.

        Accordingly, we hold that Zuniga’s petition is time-barred and dismiss his petition.

        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.

                                                      Che, J.
 We concur:

 Lee, P.J.

 Veljacic, J.

                                                  3