State v. McLean

150 Wn. 2d 583 (2003) · Supreme Court of Washington · December 4, 2003

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court considered whether to adopt, by judicial decision, a mailbox rule deeming pro se prisoners' collateral attacks timely when delivered to prison officials before the statutory deadline. The court held that Washington's procedural rules require receipt by the court within the applicable period and declined to adopt the federal-style mailbox rule. The court affirmed dismissal of both the personal restraint petition and the motion to withdraw a guilty plea as untimely, and found no basis for equitable tolling.

Holdings

  1. The Washington Supreme Court declined to adopt a mailbox rule through case law for pro se prisoners filing collateral attacks on criminal judgments.
  2. Carlstad's personal restraint petition was untimely because RAP 18.6(c) required receipt by the appellate court within the filing period, and the petition was not received until one day after the deadline.
  3. McLean's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was untimely because CR 5(e) requires filing with the clerk of the court, and the mailbox rule applies to service under CR 5(b)(2)(A) but not to filing.
  4. The court did not decide whether equitable tolling is available in criminal cases, but held that it could not apply to either Carlstad or McLean because neither demonstrated bad faith, deception, or false assurances by prison officials.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Washington courts should adopt, through judicial decision, a mailbox rule deeming a pro se prisoner's collateral attack filed when delivered to prison officials for mailing.
  2. Whether RAP 18.6(c) permits a personal restraint petition to be timely filed when delivered to prison officials before the deadline but received by the appellate court afterward.
  3. Whether CR 5(e), considered with CR 5(b)(2)(A), permits a motion to withdraw a guilty plea to be timely filed when delivered to prison officials before the deadline but received by the superior court afterward.
  4. Whether equitable tolling could preserve either collateral attack despite receipt after the statutory deadline.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (11)

  • In re Pers. Restraint of Carlstad, 114 Wn. App. 447, 458, 58 P.3d 301 (2002)(affirmed)
  • In re Pers. Restraint of Carlstad, 149 Wn.2d 1008, 67 P.3d 1097 (2003)(procedural history)
  • State v. McLean, noted at 96 Wn. App. 1011 (1999)(procedural history)
  • State v. McLean, 139 Wn.2d 1018, 994 P.2d 846 (2000)(procedural history)
  • State v. McLean, noted at 115 Wn. App. 1030 (2003)(rejected)
  • State v. Robinson, 104 Wn. App. 657, 17 P.3d 653 (2001)(followed)
  • State v. Hurt, 107 Wn. App. 816, 27 P.3d 1276 (2001)(not followed)
  • Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1988)(distinguished)
  • State v. Duvall, 86 Wn. App. 871, 874-75, 940 P.2d 671 (1997)(followed)
  • State v. Littlefair, 112 Wn. App. 749, 760, 51 P.3d 116 (2002)(cited)

Showing top 10 of 11.

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