In the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of Richard Garrett Turay

150 Wash. 2d 71, 74 P.3d 1194 (2003) · Supreme Court of Washington · August 21, 2003 · No. No. 73255-8

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a personal restraint petition challenging civil commitment as a sexually violent predator is subject to a one-year time limitation under RCW 7.36.130, incorporating the time allowed by RCW 10.73.090. The court rejected the petitioner’s arguments that a recent decision constituted a significant change in law or that the commitment order was facially invalid. Because the petition was untimely and, at best, mixed, the court dismissed it without reaching the remaining issues.

Holdings

  1. A personal restraint petition filed in either the Court of Appeals or the Washington Supreme Court challenging commitment as a sexually violent predator is subject to the one-year time limitation incorporated through RCW 7.36.130 from RCW 10.73.090.
  2. The one-year limitation includes the requirement that the challenged judgment be valid on its face, but Turay did not establish that his commitment order was facially invalid.
  3. In re Detention of Albrecht did not constitute a significant change in the law under RCW 10.73.100(6), so Turay could not use that exception to avoid the one-year bar.
  4. A personal restraint petition containing at least one claim that does not fall within a statutory exception to the one-year limitation must be dismissed as a mixed petition without consideration of the remaining claims.
  5. When a personal restraint petition filed in the Court of Appeals is both untimely under RCW 7.36.130 and successive under RCW 10.73.140, the Court of Appeals must dismiss it as time-barred rather than transfer it to the Supreme Court.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the one-year limitation incorporated through RCW 7.36.130 applies to a personal restraint petition challenging a civil sexually violent predator commitment.
  2. Whether the one-year limitation is avoided because the commitment order was allegedly invalid on its face.
  3. Whether the decision in In re Detention of Albrecht constituted a significant change in the law creating an exception under RCW 10.73.100(6).
  4. Whether the petition had to be dismissed as a mixed petition because at least one claim did not fall within a statutory exception.
  5. Whether the Court of Appeals should have dismissed rather than transferred an untimely successive personal restraint petition.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (25)

  • In re Detention of Turay, 139 Wash. 2d 379, 415-22, 986 P.2d 790 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1125 (2001)(followed procedurally)
  • In re Detention of Young, 122 Wash. 2d 1, 857 P.2d 989 (1993)(followed)
  • Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 121 S. Ct. 727, 148 L. Ed. 2d 734 (2001)(followed)
  • Holt v. Morris, 84 Wash. 2d 841, 845 n. 1, 529 P.2d 1081 (1974)(followed)
  • Wright v. Morris, 85 Wash. 2d 899, 540 P.2d 893 (1975)(noted)
  • State v. Pascal, 108 Wash. 2d 125, 736 P.2d 1065 (1987)(followed)
  • In re Habeas Corpus of Olson, 12 Wash. App. 682, 531 P.2d 508 (1975)(followed)
  • Toliver v. Olsen, 109 Wash. 2d 607, 746 P.2d 809 (1987)(followed)
  • In re Rafferty, 1 Wash. 382, 25 P. 465 (1890)(followed)
  • State v. Blilie, 132 Wash. 2d 484, 939 P.2d 691 (1997)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court