Facts: Petitioner Phillip Hicks was convicted of murder in the Superior Court for Pierce County. Hicks subsequently appealed his conviction on grounds that he had been provided ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to the trial court informing prospective jurors that the respondent state of Washington was not seeking the death penalty and on grounds that during jury selection the sole remaining African American in the jury pool had been unconstitutionally dismissed via a peremptory challenge on the basis of their race. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Hicks’ conviction, holding that although the performance of Hicks’ attorney was deficient insofar as he had not objected to the trial court’s error in informing prospective jurors that the death penalty was not being sought in the case, the deficient performance was harmless. The Washington Court of Appeals also held that a prima facie case of racial discrimination had not been made with regard to the dismissal of the sole remaining African American in the jury pool. Hicks appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Was Hicks denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to the trial court informing prospective jurors that the state was not seeking the death penalty?

If so, was the deficient performance harmless?

Was the sole remaining African American in the jury pool unconstitutionally dismissed on the basis of their race?

Conclusion: Justice James M. Johnson’s opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that although the performance of Hicks’ attorney was deficient, the deficient performance was harmless insofar as there was no indication that it affected the jury’s verdict. The Court also held that the trial court did not err in permitting the state to use a peremptory challenge to dismiss the sole remaining African American in the jury pool as the state provided plausible race neutral grounds for their dismissal.

Docket No. 79143-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 31645-5)

Petitioner: Phillip Hicks

(Counsel: David Bruce Koch and Rita Joan Griffith)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Kathleen Proctor)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, April 24th, 2008

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 6-3

Citation: Pending

Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders
(Dissent)

Bridge

Chambers
(Concurs)

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson
(Majority)