Personal Restraint Petition Of Jeffrey Kinzle ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                           FILED
    COURT OF APPEALS.OIVI
    'STATE OF WASHINGTON'
    2011 SEP 1 I AM 10: 37
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    IN RE PERSONAL RESTRAINT                          No. 74670-7-1
    PETITION OF
    DIVISION ONE
    JEFFREY KINZLE,                            UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    Petitioner.
    FILED: September 11,2017
    SPEARMAN, J.     When a claim has been raised and rejected on direct
    appeal, a petitioner may not renew the claim in a personal restraint petition.
    Jeffrey Kinzle contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He asserts
    that, despite an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, his
    attorney failed to assist his efforts to obtain substitute counsel. But because we
    already rejected the claim that the attorney-client relationship was irreconcilably
    broken, Kinzie may not renew the claim here.
    Kinzie also contends that his attorney deficiently failed to investigate his
    mental health and this deficiency caused him to reject a plea offer. To prevail on
    this claim, Kinzle must show a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged
    deficiency, he would have accepted the plea. Kinzle fails to make this showing.
    The personal restraint petition is denied.
    No. 74670-7-1/2
    FACTS
    Kinzie has a history of mental illness. When he was booked into the
    Snohomish County Jail(SCJ) in March 2011, he informed jail staff that he was
    mentally ill and took a number of medications. The jail did not immediately obtain
    these medications or begin treating Kinzie.
    Kinzie was charged with failure to register as a sex offender, indecent
    liberties, and one count of child molestation. In early April, the Office of Public
    Defense appointed Cassie Trueblood to represent Kinzie. It appears that
    Trueblood did not meet with Kinzie for at least two weeks. During this period
    before their first meeting, Kinzie twice sent kites, or written requests, to the public
    defender's office asking for a new attorney. App. 37-38. He asserted that
    Trueblood "refused to do her job." Appendix (App.) 37.
    On April 7, the State proposed a plea bargain that encompassed all of the
    charges. The record contains no evidence concerning Kinzle's response or his
    discussions with Trueblood about the offer. Kinzie later indicated, however, that
    he refused the plea offer against Trueblood's advice.
    Near the end of April, Kinzie told jail staff he was experiencing mood
    swings and asked to resume Lithium treatment.1 A mental health evaluation was
    conducted. The mental health professional documented Kinzle's report of rapid
    cycling between mania and depression. She evaluated Kinzie as having
    organized thought processes, reality based thought content, no sensory
    1 Kinzie also asked the jail staff to obtain his previous mental health records. The jail
    obtained records from September 2009-January 2010. During that time period, Kinzle's only
    medication was Dexedrine which reportedly improved his ability to focus.
    2
    No. 74670-7-1/3
    disturbance, and normal intellectual functioning. Kinzle resumed Lithium
    treatment on May 1.2
    In June, the State amended the information to add a second count of child
    molestation. A short time later, Kinzle pleaded guilty to failure to register. At the
    end of June, the State proposed a second plea offer. Kinzle rejected the offer
    against Trueblood's advice.
    On June 29 and 30, Kinzle addressed five kites to Trueblood. He asked
    for copies of discovery as well as laws and legal definitions related to his
    charges. Kinzle also sent a kite to the director of public defense requesting a new
    attorney. He asserted that Trueblood was doing more to accommodate the
    prosecutor than to defend him and alleged that she would not fight for him at trial.
    
    Id. Kinzle also
    alleged that Trueblood refused to pursue all of the investigations
    he requested.
    In July, after negotiation with Trueblood, the State renewed its plea offer.
    Kinzie indicated that he would accept the offer and a hearing was set. Prior to the
    hearing, Kinzle addressed seven kites to Trueblood asking her to investigate
    various defense theories.
    At the hearing, Kinzie rejected the plea offer and also moved to substitute
    counsel. He asserted that Trueblood had been trying to "strong arm" him into
    accepting a plea deal. App. 56. Kinzle explained that, as he was facing a life
    sentence, he wanted to fight the charges, not plead to them. He also alleged that
    Trueblood refused his requests to investigate additional evidence, she had not
    2 Records indicate, however, that Kinzie did not always receive the medication as
    prescribed over the next few months.
    3
    No. 74670-7-1/4
    given him copies of the laws and legal definitions he requested, and he did not
    believe he would get a fair trial with her as his attorney.
    Trueblood acknowledged there had been a breakdown in Communication,
    especially in the past week. But she stated that she had done substantial
    investigation and believed she,was competent to handle the case. Trueblood left
    the decision of whether to replace her to the court. The court continued the
    motion one week to allow Kinzie and Trueblood an opportunity to reestablish
    communication.
    When the hearing resumed, Kinzie stated that he had spoken with
    Trueblood but he was still opposed to her approach concerning plea offers. The
    court found that the parties were communicating and Trueblood was investigating
    all of Kinzle's witnesses. The court denied Kinzle's motion to substitute counsel.
    In August, inmates reported to SCJ corrections officers that Kinzie made
    threatening statements concerning Trueblood and other targets. When informed
    of these statements, the prosecutor was concerned that Kinzle's threats could
    provide Trueblood with a motive to want Kinzie to receive a lengthy sentence and
    could thus be a conflict of interest. The prosecutor raised his concerns in a
    motion to clarify the potential conflict of interest. At the hearing on the motion,
    Trueblood stated that she was prepared for trial, she was not afraid of Kinzie,
    and she felt confident representing him. The court did not issue a ruling but
    stated that "Ms. Trueblood believes she can adequately represent [Kinzie], and
    I've heard nothing to the contrary, and off you go." App. 68.
    4
    No. 74670-7-1/5
    The court addressed Kinzle's representation again on October 31, the first
    day of the indecent liberties trial. During motions in limine, the court inquired
    about the prior motion concerning a conflict of interest and asked Trueblood to
    address the issue of representation. Trueblood stated that she was prepared for
    trial and did not see the need for new counsel. The court then addressed Kinzie:
    The Court: Let me just ask you, given that your attorney has
    represented that she is prepared to represent you today, she's not
    concerned about whatever you might have communicated at the jail
    to other people or whatever threats or whatever may have gone on.
    . . . So we're ready to go. If that meets with your approval.
    Kinzle: Yes, sir.
    The Court: O.K. ... I don't see that there's anything
    carrying over today that would impact Ms. Trueblood's ability to
    represent Mr. Kinzie. He's indicated today that he's comfortable
    having Ms. Trueblood continue to represent him, so I don't perceive
    a conflict that would require. . . any change of attorney to be
    addressed at this time. . . .
    App. 70.
    Kinzie was convicted of indecent liberties. In a separate trial, he was also
    convicted of two counts of child molestation. We affirmed his indecent liberties
    conviction in State v. Kinzie, 
    174 Wash. App. 1073
    , 2013 WL 1960159(2013)
    (Kinzie I). In State v. Kinzie, 
    181 Wash. App. 774
    , 326 P.3d 870(2014)(Kinzie II),
    we affirmed one count of child molestation, reversed one count, and remanded
    for correction of improper community custody conditions.
    DISCUSSION
    In this personal restraint petition, Kinzie asks us to vacate his convictions
    and order the Snohomish County Prosecutor to reinstate the April 2011 plea
    offer. Kinzie contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in
    violation of the Sixth Amendment. To prevail in a claim of ineffective assistance
    5
    No. 74670-7-1/6
    of counsel, a petitioner must show that(1) his attorney's representation was
    deficient and (2)the deficiency resulted in prejudice. State v. McFarland, 
    127 Wash. 2d 322
    , 334, 
    899 P.2d 1251
    (1995)(applying Strickland v. Washington, 466
    U.S. 668,687, 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 
    80 L. Ed. 2d 674
    (1984)).
    Kinzie asserts that Trueblood was deficient because, despite a complete
    breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, she failed to assist Kinzle in his
    efforts to obtain new counsel. Kinzle also contends that Trueblood was deficient
    in failing to investigate his mental health. He asserts that Trueblood was aware of
    his history of mental illness. In addition, he argues that his behavior and
    interaction with Trueblood should have alerted her that he was currently mentally
    ill. Kinzie contends he was prejudiced by these alleged deficiencies because as a
    result he rejected a favorable plea offer that he otherwise would have accepted.
    As a threshold matter, the State asserts that Kinzle's claims were rejected
    on the merits in Kinzle I and may not be reconsidered here. A personal restraint
    petitioner may generally not renew an issue that was raised and rejected on
    direct appeal. In re Pers. Restraint of Stenson, 
    142 Wash. 2d 710
    , 720, 
    16 P.3d 1
    (2001)(Stenson II). A petitioner may not sidestep this rule by recasting an issue
    under a different name or legal theory. 
    Id. An exception
    to the general rule exists
    where relitigation is necessary in the interest of justice, as when there has been
    an intervening material change in law. 
    Id. In Stenson
    II, the Supreme Court considered whether a petitioner's claim
    was barred because it had been considered on direct appeal. 
    Id. at 723.
    In the
    direct appeal, Stenson asserted that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
    6
    No. 74670-7-1/7
    substitute counsel. State v. Stenson, 
    132 Wash. 2d 668
    , 733, 940 P.2d 1239(1997)
    (Stenson I). The essential question before the court was whether "counsel and
    defendant[were] so at odds as to prevent presentation of an adequate defense."
    
    Id. at 734.
    The court held that Stenson failed to show the necessity for new
    counsel and rejected his claim. 
    Id. at 737.
    In the later personal restraint petition, Stenson asserted that he received
    ineffective assistance of counsel due to an irreconcilable conflict. Stenson 
    II, 142 Wash. 2d at 722-24
    . The Stenson II court held that this issue had been addressed
    on direct appeal. 
    Id. at 723-24.
    But because an intervening change in law
    required a different legal analysis, the court considered the issue in the interest of
    justice. 
    Id. at 724.
    In this case, Kinzie asserted on direct appeal that the trial court erred in
    denying his motion to substitute counsel. Kinzie I, 174 Wn. App. at *2. Kinzie
    contended that he and Trueblood had "an ongoing, intractable conflict' that
    'amounted to a total breakdown in communications." 
    Id. We rejected
    the claim
    because Kinzie failed to show that the attorney-client relationship had collapsed
    to such a degree that it violated Kinzle's right to an adequate defense. 
    Id. at *2-3.
    In this petition, Kinzie asserts that his relationship with Trueblood "became
    irreconcilably broken." Personal Restraint Petition (PRP) at 6. He claims that he
    received ineffective assistance of counsel because, despite this complete
    breakdown in the relationship, Trueblood failed to withdraw, join his motion to
    substitute counsel, or fully inform the court of the state of the attorney-client
    relationship. But we considered and rejected the claim that the attorney-client
    7
    No. 74670-7-1/8
    relationship was irreconcilably broken in Kinzle I. Kinzie may not raise the issue
    again here.
    Kinzle attempts to escape this result by arguing that his claim in this
    petition has a different focus than his claim on direct appeal. He relies on In re
    Pers. Restraint Petition of Khan, 
    184 Wash. 2d 679
    , 363 P.3d 577(2015). In that
    case, the petitioner asserted on direct appeal that he received ineffective
    assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to alleged trial errors.
    
    Id. at 688.
    In a later personal restraint petition, he asserted that he received
    ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to provide him with
    an interpreter. 
    Id. The Khan
    court held that the interpreter issue was a new claim
    that had not been considered on direct appeal. 
    Id. at 689.
    Khan is of no help to Kinzle. In that case, the petitioner raised an
    independent claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unrelated to the claim
    considered on direct appeal. But in this case, Kinzle's claim requires
    consideration of the same issue addressed on direct appea1.3
    Kinzle also argued, in Kinzie 1, that the trial court erred in failing to order a
    competency hearing. Kinzie I, 174 Wn. App. at *2. He asserted that the record
    gave substantial evidence that his competency was "questionable." j.çj. at *4. We
    disagreed. 
    Id. We held
    that there was no evidence that Kinzie was unable to
    3 Kinzie also asserts that this petition relies on evidence that was not presented to the
    trial court. This evidence consists of Kinzle's kites, his medical records, his 2015 declaration
    stating that he had difficulty working with his attorney, and the declarations of his experts. But
    because the nature of Kinzle's relationship with Trueblood was litigated on direct appeal, the new
    evidence is only relevant if it goes to whether the interests of justice require relitigation of the
    issue. Stenson 
    II, 142 Wash. 2d at 719
    . Kinzie fails to show that it does.
    8
    No. 74670-7-1/9
    understand the proceedings or assist in his own defense. 
    Id. "In fact,"
    we noted,
    "when Kinzie addressed the court, the opposite appeared true." 
    Id. In this
    personal restraint petition, Kinzie asserts that Trueblood was
    deficient in failing to investigate his mental health despite numerous facts that
    should have alerted her that he was mentally ill. The State contends that this
    claim simply recasts the issue of whether Kinzie was competent to assist in his
    own defense. Kinzie disputes that his competency is at issue here. He contends
    that, regardless of whether he was incompetent, his mental illness was at the
    root of his problems with counsel and his refusal of the plea offer.
    Kinzle's claim here is closely related to the competency issue considered
    in Kinzie I. In the direct appeal, however, we examined whether the evidence
    before the trial court indicated that Kinzie was incompetent. Here, the question is
    whether the facts available to Trueblood created an obligation that she
    investigate Kinzle's mental health. Because that issue was not addressed on
    direct appeal, we consider it here.
    We first consider whether Kinzie has established prejudice. To obtain
    relief in a personal restraint petition, a petitioner must show that he was actually
    prejudiced by each claimed constitutional error. In re Pers. Restraint Petition of
    Rice, 
    118 Wash. 2d 876
    , 884, 
    828 P.2d 1086
    (1992). A petitioner shows that he was
    prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel by establishing that, but for
    counsel's deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result
    of the trial would have been different. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    . Where
    ineffective assistance allegedly causes a defendant to reject a plea offer, a
    9
    No. 74670-7-1/10
    defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the ineffective advice
    of counsel, he would have accepted the plea. Lafler v. Cooper, 
    566 U.S. 156
    ,
    _132 S. Ct. 1376, 1385, 
    182 L. Ed. 2d 398
    (2012).
    Kinzle asserts that he "would have accepted the original plea offer, had
    he--with proper medication—been in a mental state to appreciate his legal
    situation and had communications between his counsel and him not completely
    broken down." PRP at 34. He relies on his own 2015 declaration, in which he
    states that his mental illness impeded his ability to understand Trueblood and
    that if he had "been mentally stable and been able to trust Ms. Trueblood's
    advice," he would have accepted the offer.4 App. 14. Kinzie also relies on the
    declaration of his expert, psychologist Alan Breen, who opined that the initial
    dose of Lithium prescribed was unlikely to have been optimal and that Kinzie
    likely continued to have symptoms of mania even after he began treatment. And
    Kinzie argues that, given the strength of the State's case, any rational defendant
    would have accepted the plea offer.
    The link that Kinzie posits between Trueblood's alleged deficiency and his
    refusal of the plea offer is speculative and tenuous. His argument assumes that,
    had Trueblood investigated his mental health, she would have ordered a mental
    health evaluation. It further assumes that the results of the new evaluation would
    4 Kinzie asserts that a petitioner's own statement suffices to establish that he would have
    accepted the plea offer but for his attorney's deficient performance. He relies on the Sixth Circuit
    decision underlying Lafler. The case is distinguishable. In Lafler, defense counsel provided
    erroneous legal information and, based on that information, advised the defendant to reject a plea
    offer. Cooper v. Lafler, 376 Fed. App'x. 563, 570 (6th Cir. 2010). In a habeas corpus petition
    following his conviction, the defendant argued that he would have accepted the plea offer but for
    his attorney's erroneous advice. 
    Id. at 571.
    His trial attorney confirmed the statement and the
    circumstances lent credence to the claim. 
    Id. at 572.
    10
    No. 74670-7-1/11
    have been different from those of the mental health evaluation administered on
    April 26. Kinzle's argument further assumes that, in response to this hypothetical
    evaluation, the SCJ would have modified Kinzle's treatment. Meanwhile,
    Trueblood would have continued the cases and, at some point, the treatment
    would have altered Kinzle's mental state to such a degree that he would have
    accepted Trueblood's advice to accept the plea offer despite his professed desire
    to make the State prove the case against him. Kinzle points to no case in which a
    defendant established prejudice through a similarly tenuous connection. He fails
    to establish a reasonable probability that, but for the allegedly deficient
    representation, he would have accepted the plea. Kinzle fails to establish that he
    was prejudiced by Trueblood's performance.5
    The petition is denied.
    S f
    '''''''   .
    4r.e.""'"•.     j
    WE CONCUR:
    5 In light of our disposition, we do not consider Kinzle's claim that Trueblood's
    performance was deficient. In re Crace, 
    174 Wash. 2d 835
    , 847, 280 P.3d 1102(2012).("We need
    not consider both prongs of Strickland (deficient performance and prejudice) if a petitioner fails on
    one.")(quoting 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697
    ).
    11