§ 24.9 Related Remedies in Superior Court

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§24.9 RELATED REMEDIES IN SUPERIOR COURT

Two superior court remedies closely relate to the personal restraint petition procedure: superior court habeas corpus and motions under CrR 7.8. These remedies are introduced here to alert practitioners to potential alternative ways of presenting claims, and to the fact that use of one of the three available remedies could preclude use of the others. The procedures for the superior court remedies are not covered by this deskbook.

(1) Habeas corpus

The availability of a personal restraint petition in the appellate courts does not affect the continued availability of the writ of habeas corpus in superior court. RAP 16.3(b). Superior court jurisdiction in habeas is mandated by the Washington Constitution, and the court rules leave this jurisdiction unaffected. Wash. Const. art. IV, §6; Toliver v. Olsen, 109 Wn.2d 607, 746 P.2d 809 (1987). Thus, many claims may be raised by either personal restraint petition in the appellate court or by habeas in superior court. For example, claims of constitutional errors leading to a judgment of conviction can be heard either in superior court or by means of a personal restraint petition. RCW 7.36.130 (habeas); RAP 16.4(c)(2) (personal restraint). Other examples include claims of sentencing errors, Brooks v. Rhay, 92 Wn.2d 876, 602 P.2d 356 (1979) (habeas); In re Moore, 116 Wn.2d 30, 803 P.2d 300 (1991) (personal restraint); and some challenges to actions of the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board, Addleman v. State Bd. of Prison Terms & Paroles, 107 Wn.2d 503, 730 P.2d 1327 (1986) (habeas); In re Locklear, 118 Wn.2d 409, 823 P.2d 1078 (1992) (personal restraint).

There are, however, differences in scope between superior court habeas and the personal restraint procedure. Compare RCW 7.36.130 with RAP 16.4(c)(3). See §24.5(1) for discussion of what claims can be raised in a personal restraint petition.

(2) CrR 7.8

The second related superior court remedy is CrR 7.8, which is the criminal counterpart to CR 60. CR 60(b), which empowers superior courts to vacate judgments, was held applicable to criminal cases in State v. Scott, 92 Wn.2d 209, 595 P.2d 549 (1979). In 1986, CrR 7.8 was promulgated as an explicit criminal rule version of CR 60.

CrR 7.8 potentially overlaps personal restraint proceedings by allowing the superior court to, for example, grant relief for "errors" in the judgment (probably including erroneous or unauthorized sentences) (CrR 7.8(a)); or on the ground of newly discovered evidence, "misconduct of an adverse party," a void judgment, or "[a]ny other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment" (CrR 7.8(b), pertinent parts). As with superior court habeas, the personal restraint rules appear to encompass a broader range of potential claims. Compare CrR 7.8 with RAP 16.4(c).

(3) Choice of remedy; pitfalls

The personal restraint process overlaps the superior court...