Facts: Petitioner Raymond Martinez was convicted of first degree burglary in the Superior Court for Grant County after he was arrested while burglarizing a farm shop while in possession of a knife. Martinez appealed his conviction, asserting that the prosecutor had committed misconduct by misstating the evidence, misleading the jury, and making inflammatory statements. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Martinez’s conviction, holding that although the prosecutor’s comments were unsupported by the evidence, they had not been sufficiently prejudicial as to constitute reversible error. Martinez subsequently filed a personal restraint petition in the Washington Court of Appeals claiming that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that insufficient evidence supported his conviction for first degree burglary insofar as he had neither used nor threatened to use the knife during the burglary and that the knife was therefore not a deadly weapon for purposes of establishing first degree burglary under Washington Revised Code §9A.52.020. The Washington Court of Appeals dismissed the petition without addressing Martinez’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. Nearly two years later, Martinez filed a motion for relief from judgment seeking the reversal of his conviction on grounds that the trial court had failed to properly define the meaning of the term deadly weapon for purposes of §9A.52.020. The superior court transferred the motion for consideration as a personal restraint petition to the Washington Court of Appeals, which dismissed it as untimely and successive. Martinez appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Is Martinez’s personal restraint petition untimely and successive?

If not, did sufficient evidence support Martinez’s conviction for first degree burglary?

Conclusion: Chief Justice Madsen’s opinion for a unanimous Court reversed the Washington Court of Appeals and vacated Martinez’s conviction, concluding that his personal restraint petition is neither untimely nor successive given that Washington Revised Code §10.73.090’s requirement that personal restraint petitions be filed within a year after final judgment does not apply in cases involving insufficient evidence and given that the Washington Court of Appeals did not address Martinez’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence when dismissing Martinez’s first personal restraint petition. Turning to the merits, the Court held that insufficient evidence supported Martinez’s conviction for first degree burglary insofar as Martinez had not attempted to use the knife and mere possession is insufficient to render deadly for purposes of §9A.52.020 a dangerous weapon other than a firearm or an explosive.

Docket No. 83219-6 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 27949-9)

Petitioner: Raymond Martinez

(Counsel: Eric J. Nielsen, David Bruce Koch, and Jennifer J. Sweigert)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Douglas Robert Mitchell)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:30pm

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

Decided: Thursday, April 28th, 2011

Prevailing Party: Raymond Martinez (Petitioner)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)

Madsen
(Majority)

Johnson

Alexander

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens

Wiggins