Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialpleajury trial
trialpleajury trial

Related Cases

DiCristofaro v. Beaudry, 113 R.I. 313, 320 A.2d 597
View Case »
Carlson v. Warren, 878 N.E.2d 844
View Case »
Jameson Real Estate, LLC v. Ahmed, 2018 IL App (1st) 171534, 129 N.E.3d 128, 432 Ill.Dec. 240
View Case »
Matter of Estate of Button, 17 Kan.App.2d 11, 830 P.2d 1216
View Case »
Carroll Independent Fuel Co. v. Washington Real Estate Inv. Trust, 202 Md.App. 206, 32 A.3d 128
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of Covert, Not Reported in Pac. Rptr., 11 Wash.App.2d 1086, 2020 WL 377960

Facts

Anthony Covert was convicted in 2009 of attempted first degree murder, first degree assault, possession of a stolen firearm, and other charges after a jury trial. His trial counsel, Alan Rossi, failed to communicate a plea offer from the State that would have significantly reduced his sentence. Covert later claimed that he was unaware of this offer until he discovered it through a public records request in 2016, prompting him to file a personal restraint petition in 2018, which was dismissed as untimely.

Anthony Covert was convicted in 2009 of attempted first degree murder, first degree assault, possession of a stolen firearm, and other charges after a jury trial. His trial counsel, Alan Rossi, failed to communicate a plea offer from the State that would have significantly reduced his sentence. Covert later claimed that he was unaware of this offer until he discovered it through a public records request in 2016, prompting him to file a personal restraint petition in 2018, which was dismissed as untimely.

Issue

Whether Covert's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on newly discovered evidence of a plea offer can overcome the one-year time bar for filing a personal restraint petition.

Whether Covert's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on newly discovered evidence of a plea offer can overcome the one-year time bar for filing a personal restraint petition.

Rule

Under RCW 10.73.090(1), a personal restraint petition must be filed within one year of the final judgment unless it falls under specific exceptions outlined in RCW 10.73.100.

Under RCW 10.73.090(1), a personal restraint petition must be filed within one year of the final judgment unless it falls under specific exceptions outlined in RCW 10.73.100.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the newly discovered evidence exception could apply to Covert's ineffective assistance claim. It concluded that the exception is limited to evidence that directly impacts guilt or innocence, not collateral matters like ineffective assistance of counsel. The court referenced previous rulings that emphasized the importance of finality and the legislature's role in expanding statutory exceptions.

The court analyzed whether the newly discovered evidence exception could apply to Covert's ineffective assistance claim. It concluded that the exception is limited to evidence that directly impacts guilt or innocence, not collateral matters like ineffective assistance of counsel. The court referenced previous rulings that emphasized the importance of finality and the legislature's role in expanding statutory exceptions.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Covert's petition as time-barred under RCW 10.73.090(1), affirming that the newly discovered evidence did not provide a valid exception to the time limit.

The court dismissed Covert's petition as time-barred under RCW 10.73.090(1), affirming that the newly discovered evidence did not provide a valid exception to the time limit.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the dismissal of Covert's petition based on procedural grounds, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits.

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the dismissal of Covert's petition based on procedural grounds, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits.

You must be