* In re Pers. Restraint of James

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

/Fnn/ IN CLERKS OFFICE
gjjpissic COL!?.T. STATE OF VWSHWSTOtl
PA" MAY 1 0 2018
I CO-
c«<eFjusrict j
This opinion was filed for record
at ^ CVAo-^ onfC\Cti^n^J/)i"Sl
SUSAN L. CARLSON
Pf
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of
ROBERT EDWARD JAMES,
Petitioner.
NO. 9 4 8 6 9-1
EN BANC
Filed: MAY 1 0 2018
PER CURIAM—^Robert James timely filed a personal restraint petition with
supporting documents. The acting chiefjudge of Division Two ofthe Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition as frivolous, and this court's commissioner denied James's
motion for discretionary review. Based on the evidence included in James's pleadings
and the State's subsequent statements, we grant James's motion to modify the
commissioner's ruling, grant discretionary review, and remand to the Court of Appeals
for further consideration.
FACTS
A jury convicted James of second degree rape.' At trial, the State presented
evidence that a swab fi-om S.C.'s neck contained a mixed DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)
'The Court of Appeals addressed the facts in detail on James's direct appeal. State
V. James, No. 44906-4-II(Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2015)(unpublished).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No.94869-1 Page 2
profile consistent with James and S.C. All of the male DNA located on S.C, matched
James. The anal swab obtained from S.C. contained P30, a protein commonly found in
semen, but no DNA was recovered from the swab. James's defense was general denial
based on the theory that while he engaged in consensual nonintercourse sexual activity
with S.C,, she was raped by someone else after he left. In the defense trial brief, defense
counsel accurately stated that James's DNA was found on both sides of S.C.'s neck, but
in a possible reference to the P30 found in the anal swab, counsel erroneously added
that an "unidentified male's DNA" was found elsewhere on her body.
The State's DNA expert testified on direct examination that the anal swabs
were tested for P30, a protein used to indicate the presence ofsemen. The expert further
explained that the P30 test cannot identify the donor ofthe semen. The P30 test results
were positive for the presence of semen, but the anal swabs contained no male DNA.
Yet, after this explanation, James's defense counsel asked if the expert was able to
retrieve DNA from the anal swab, and why she was unable to do so. When the expert
again explained that a presumptive test for semen does not always yield DNA,defense
counsel responded by incorrectly implying that the expert had concluded there was
more than one male DNA profile on the victim:
[Defense Counsel:] Okay, now, you found another deduced male
profile from the right neck sample?
[Expert:] The mixture is consistent with [the victim] and Mr. James, with
the assumption that [the victim] is present on her own neck swab. The
types of the STRs [(short tandem repeats)] that are present do not belong
to her and can be subtracted out into a deduced male profile.
http://www.courts.wa.gOv/opinions/pdf7D2%2044906-4-II%20%20Unpublished%200pini
on.pdf.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No.94869-1 Page 3
Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Mar. 27, 2013) at 83. Then, in response,
defense counsel again incorrectly indicated that there was more than one male
DNA profile on victim:
[Defense Counsel:] Okay, and that would be something other than the
profile of Mr. James?
[Expert:] No,in fact, those types do match Mr. James....
Id. at 84.
The jury found him guilty. As noted above, James, acting pro se, timely filed
a personal restraint petition in the Court of Appeals on October 20, 2015, asserting
several grounds for relief. James was permitted to file an overlength brief with several
documents attached, including his personal declaration, a Washington State Patrol
crime laboratory DNA report, and letters he wrote to defense counsel and the prosecutor
that included repeated requests for a copy of an allegedly favorable plea offer.
The acting chiefjudge ultimately dismissed the personal restraint petition as
frivolous, explaining his ruling as to each claim. James timely moved for this court's
discretionary review. In denying review, the commissioner indicated that James failed
to provide adequate evidence to support the claim that counsel was ineffective for
failing to properly investigate and understand the DNA evidence. James moved to
modify the commissioner's ruling on various grounds, and the court directed the State
to respond to the motion. For reasons explained below, we grant the motion to modify,
grant the motion for discretionary review, and remand to the Court of Appeals for
further proceedings.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No.94869-1 Page 4
ANALYSIS
In considering a personal restraint petition, the chief or acting chiefjudge of
the Court of Appeals first considers the petition without oral argument. If the issues
presented are "frivolous," the chief judge will dismiss the petition. RAP 16.11(b).
"Frivolous" in this context means that the petition "fails to present an arguable basis
for ... relief... in law or in fact, given the constraints ofthe personal restraint petition
vehicle." In re Pers. Restraint ofKhan, 184 Wn.2d 679, 686-87, 363 P.3d 577(2015)
(plurality opinion); see also In re Pers. Restraint ofCaldellis, 187 Wn.2d 127,135,385
P.3d 135 (2016). "If the petition is not frivolous and can be determined solely on the
record, the Chief Judge will refer the petition to a panel ofjudges for determination on
the merits." RAP 16.11(b).
The acting chiefjudge likely was correct in determining that the majority of
James's claims for relief are frivolous, but James's ineffective assistance of counsel
claim based on counsel's failure to understand the DNA evidence may not be frivolous,
and it is not clear that the evidence presented and the State's statements regarding a plea
offer were fully considered below. Principles of effective assistance of counsel require
counsel to "'assist[] the defendant in making an informed decision as to whether to
plead guilty or to proceed to trial.'" State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450,464, 395 P.3d 1045
(2017) (quoting State v. A.N.J, 168 Wn.2d 91, 111, 225 P.3d 956 (2010)). At a
minimum,this includes '"reasonably evaluat[ing] the evidence against the accused and
the likelihood of a conviction if the case proceeds to trial.'" Id. (quoting A.N.J, 168
Wn.2d at 111-12).
James contends that he has provided sufficient evidence that his counsel
misunderstood the State's DNA evidence and that this led him to reject a highly
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No.94869-1 Pages
favorable plea offer. The State has filed a response and appears to acknowledge that
James rejected a plea offer. Suppl. Resp. to Pers. Restraint Pet. at 3(James"now regrets
his decision to take his case to trial."). James asserts that his attorney incorrectly told
him there was an unidentified male's DNA found on the victim—^DNA that did not
match James and could be matched to someone else; essentially, that the DNA evidence
would support a defense theory that someone else could have committed the crime.
Thus, James's documentary evidence, combined with the State's apparent
acknowledgement that there was a plea offer, provides sufficient factual basis for more
detailed consideration by the Court of Appeals as to James's claim that defense counsel
was ineffective in misinterpreting the DNA report, including consideration of whether
further factual development is justified by way of a reference hearing or whether to
request the State to admit or deny specific factual allegations. See RAP 16.9(b);
RAP 16.11(b).
The commissioner's ruling is modified, discretionary review is granted, and
the matter is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings on James's
personal restraint petition.^
^ James's motion to sanction the State and his request for appointment ofcounsel are
denied, in light ofthis ruling, as moot.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.