Court Opinion

ID: 9964443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 22:15:52.97485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:27.975209
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 In the Matter of the Personal                No. 86181-6-I
 Restraint of
                                              DIVISION ONE
 DOKDINH SAYASACK,
                                              UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                         Petitioner.

       SMITH, C.J. — Dokdinh Sayasack was 21 years old when he was

convicted of aggravated murder in the first degree. He was sentenced to life in

prison without the possibility of parole. Sayasack filed this personal restraint

petition (PRP) more than one year after his judgment and sentenced finalized,

asserting that it is not untimely because In re Personal Restraint of Monschke

constitutes a significant, material, and retroactive change in the law that applies

to his sentence. Because Monschke concerned 19- and 20-year-old defendants,

it does not apply to Sayasack. We therefore deny Sayasack’s PRP as untimely.

                                       FACTS

       On March 14, 1994, Dokdinh Sayasack drove two of his codefendants to

the home of Marietta Dela Cruz. The three had plotted with Filomena

Washington, Dela Cruz’s daughter, to kill Dela Cruz for insurance money. The

two codefendants broke into Dela Cruz’s home and fatally shot her. Several

days after the shooting, Sayasack voluntarily went to the police station after

learning that detectives wanted to speak with him.
No. 86181-6-I/2

       Sayasack was later charged with and convicted of aggravated murder in

the first degree. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of

parole.

       Following his conviction and sentence, Sayasack appealed. This court

affirmed in an unpublished opinion. State v. Sayasack, noted at 91 Wn. App.

1019 (1998). Sayasack also unsuccessfully sought habeas review in federal

court. Sayasack v. Morgan, 27 F. App’x 860 (9th Cir. 2001); Sayasack v. Boe,

No. 3:18-cv-5315-RBL-JRC, 2018 WL 3956196 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 17, 2018)

(court order).

       Since then, Sayasack has filed several pro se PRPs that have been

denied. See In re Pers. Restraint of Sayasack, No. 33434-8-II (Wash. Ct. App.

2005) (asserting evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, that one of the

witnesses should have been indicted as a co-defendant, that the trial court erred

in trying him and his codefendant jointly, and that the court of appeals erred by

stating that Sayasack had admitted to burglarizing the victim’s home); In re Pers.

Restraint of Sayasack, No. 49585-6-II (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (alleging actual

innocence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and instructional error); In re Pers.

Restraint of Sayasack, No. 55150-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. 2020) (alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel). Sayasack filed this petition with our Supreme Court,

which transferred the petition to this court.

                                          2
No. 86181-6-I/3

                                      ANALYSIS

       Collateral relief from a conviction through a PRP is an extraordinary

remedy and petitioners must meet a high standard to obtain relief. In re Pers.

Restraint of Kennedy, 200 Wn.2d 1, 12, 513 P.3d 769 (2022). “To gain relief

through a PRP, a petitioner must make a heightened showing of ‘actual and

substantial prejudice’ for a constitutional error or ‘a complete miscarriage of

justice’ for a nonconstitutional error.” Kennedy, 200 Wn.2d at 12 (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Pers. Restraint of Light-Roth, 191 Wn.2d

328, 333, 422 P.3d 444 (2018)).

       In general, a PRP must be filed within one year of the petitioner’s

judgment and sentence becoming final. RCW 10.73.090(1). There are a few

exceptions to this general rule. For example, this court will typically not consider

successive petitions unless “the person certifies that [they have] not filed a

previous petition on similar grounds, and shows good cause why [they] did not

raise the new grounds in a previous petition.” RCW 10.73.140. If the petitioner

“previously raised the same grounds for review,” we must dismiss the petition.

RCW 10.73.140.

       A petition is also not time-barred if there has been a significant and

retroactive change in the law that is material to the petitioner’s sentence.

Kennedy, 200 Wn.2d at 12; RCW 10.73.100(7). To show a significant and

retroactive change in the law that justifies collateral relief, RCW 10.73.100(7)

requires a petitioner to show “ ‘(1) a [significant] change in the law (2) that is

                                           3
No. 86181-6-I/4

material and (3) that applies retroactively.’ ” Kennedy, 200 Wn.2d at 21

(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Light-Roth, 191

Wn.2d at 333). We can address these three requirements in any order. Light-

Roth, 191 Wn.2d at 333.

       Here, Sayasack contends that In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197

Wn.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021), constitutes a significant and retroactive change

in the law that is material to his sentence. Because Monschke applies to 19- and

20-year-old defendants, and Sayasack was 21 years old when he committed the

crime in question, we disagree.

       The second requirement, materiality, is dispositive here because

Monschke is not material to Sayasack’s sentence. In Monschke, our Supreme

Court concluded that the sentencing statute for aggravated murder in the first

degree, RCW 10.95.030, was unconstitutional as applied to 19- and 20-year-old

defendants. 197 Wn.2d at 306-07. Our Supreme Court explained that our state

constitutional prohibition against “cruel punishment” forbids mandatory life

without the possibility of parole sentences for youthful offenders because such

sentences deny trial judges the discretion to consider the mitigating qualities of

youth and engage in individualized sentencing. Monschke, 197 Wn.2d at 311-

12, 327. The court clarified that “the variability in individual attributes of

youthfulness are exactly why courts must have discretion to consider those

attributes as they apply to each individual youthful offender.” Monschke, 197

Wn.2d at 323. The court also emphasized that because “no meaningful

                                           4
No. 86181-6-I/5

neurological bright line exists between age 17 and age 18,” sentencing courts

must be able to consider the mitigating qualities of youth for defendants younger

and older than 18. Monschke, 197 Wn.2d at 326.

       Sayasack contends that Monschke did not announce a bright line rule for

youthfulness and that 21-year-olds are also youthful offenders who require

individualized sentencing. But this court and our Supreme Court have since

declined to extend the holding of Monschke to 21-year-old offenders. See, e.g.,

In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 200 Wn.2d 75, 83-84, 514 P.3d 653 (2022)

(holding that Monschke did not extend to 21-year-old sentenced under different

statute); State v. Meza, 22 Wn. App. 2d 514, 545, 512 P.3d 608 (2022) (holding

that Monschke did not categorically extend leniency based on mitigating factors

of youth to 21-year-old defendant). And more recently, our Supreme Court

explained that the lead opinion in Monschke “was careful to note it was not

concluding that [life without parole] is categorically barred for young adults.”

Kennedy, 200 Wn.2d at 23.

       Monschke is distinguishable from Sayasack’s case. Like the petitioners in

Monschke, Sayasack was sentenced under the aggravated murder statute and

received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. However, unlike the

petitioners in Monschke, who were 19- and 20-year-olds when they committed

aggravated murder, Sayasack was 21 years old when he committed his crime.

Although Sayasack turned 21 just days before committing the crime in question,

the harsh reality is that no matter where the age limit is set, someone will always

                                          5
No. 86181-6-I/6

be just days away from having it apply to them. This cannot be the method used

to determine an exception. We decline to extend Monschke’s holding to 21-year-

old offenders. Therefore, because Sayasack is outside the applicable age range

governed by Monschke, it is not material to his sentence.

      We deny Sayasack’s PRP as untimely.

WE CONCUR:

                                        6