In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Lester Juan Griffin, Petitioner
Oral Argument February 24, 2014.
Date first document (petition, etc) was filed in the Court of Appeals: 06/14/2011.
Jacqueline McMurtrie and M. Fernanda Torres (of Innocence Project Northwest Clinic--University of Washington School of Law ), for petitioner.
Anthony F. Golik, Prosecuting Attorney, and Anne M. Cruser, Deputy, for respondent.
AUTHOR: Linda Cj Lee, J. We concur: Lisa Worswick, C.J. Jill M Johanson, J.
[181 Wn.App. 100]
¶ 1 A jury found Lester Juan Griffin guilty of one count of first degree assault with a firearm enhancement and one count of attempted first degree burglary with a firearm enhancement. We affirmed Griffin's conviction. State v. Griffin, noted at 157 Wn.App. 1001 (2010). Griffin then filed this personal restraint petition (PRP). The State argues that consideration of Griffin's petition is barred on procedural grounds because his petition was inadequate and was not timely cured. We agree and deny Griffin's petition.
¶ 2 A jury found Griffin guilty of one count of first degree assault with a firearm enhancement and one count of [181 Wn.App. 101] attempted first degree burglary with a firearm enhancement. We affirmed Griffin's convictions on direct appeal, and we issued a mandate on December 10, 2010. Griffin filed a timely, 67-page pro se personal restraint petition. Later, Griffin sought, through counsel, permission to file an amended petition in place of his original pro se petition. Griffin filed a timely, eight-page amended petition on December
9, 2011, one day before the expiration of the one-year time bar. RCW 10.73.090(1). Griffin's amended petition baldly alleged six grounds for relief, but it did not contain any supporting factual allegations, legal argument, or evidence.
¶ 3 Also on December 9, Griffin filed a motion to stay consideration of his petition pending the outcome of potential deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing on trial evidence. Griffin's motion for a stay was granted. Ultimately, Griffin determined that DNA testing was not possible because the evidence had been contaminated by other forensic testing. On June 6, 2012, Griffin filed a motion requesting " that the stay be lifted and this Court set the briefing schedule set forth in Part II [of the motion], for the parties to have an opportunity to brief the issues raised in the amended petition." Pet'r Mot. to Lift Stay at 3. Griffin's motion to lift the stay was granted. The commissioner's ruling stated:
Petitioner has moved to lift the stay in this case and for permission to file a supplemental petition. Petitioner's motions are granted. Petitioner should, however, be aware that the issues in the supplemental brief may be subject to the one-year time bar stated in RCW 10.73.090 if petitioner did not raise these same issues in a previous, timely petition. See In re Pers. Restraint of Bonds, 165 Wn.2d 135, 139-44 (2008).
Ruling Lifting Stay (June 12, 2012). The commissioner's ruling also set a briefing schedule ordering that " Petitioner's supplemental petition is due within 60 days of the date of this ...