In re the Personal Restraint of Khan

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that Zahid Khan presented sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary reference hearing on whether his limited English proficiency required an interpreter at his criminal trial. The court concluded that, if an interpreter was required, counsel's failure to obtain one could constitute ineffective assistance, and remanded for factual findings concerning the need for an interpreter and resulting prejudice.

Holdings

1. A personal restraint petition is frivolous when, given the constraints of the personal restraint petition vehicle, it fails to present an arguable basis for collateral relief in either law or fact. The existence of a debatable legal issue alone is insufficient if the petition is independently barred, lacks the required factual showing, or fails to allege the prejudice necessary for collateral relief.
2. Khan presented sufficient particularized facts to warrant a reference hearing to determine whether his English proficiency required an interpreter and, if so, whether counsel's failure to obtain one constituted deficient performance and prejudiced the trial outcome.
3. The court rejected Khan's contention that counsel's failure to obtain an interpreter was structural error or that prejudice should be presumed. Khan remained required to establish prejudice under the applicable ineffective-assistance standard.
4. The prosecutorial-misconduct-related ineffective-assistance claim was properly dismissed because it repackaged a claim resolved on direct review and Khan did not show that the interests of justice required reconsideration. The claim concerning failure to obtain a defense expert was also properly dismissed because the decision was reasonable trial strategy and Khan failed to identify resulting prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. What standard determines whether a personal restraint petition is frivolous under the Rules of Appellate Procedure?
2. Whether Khan presented sufficient facts to warrant a reference hearing concerning his need for an interpreter and the resulting ineffective-assistance claim.
3. Whether failure to obtain an interpreter constituted structural error or required presumed prejudice.
4. Whether Khan's remaining ineffective-assistance claims concerning prosecutorial misconduct and failure to obtain a defense expert were cognizable and sufficient for collateral relief.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded