Legal Opinion
In re the Personal Restraint of Carter
Washington Supreme Court
Decided October 20, 2011No. 84606-5PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFairhurst, J.
¶1 The State appeals the reversal of Ernest A. Carter’s1 sentence. The Court of Appeals applied the actual innocence doctrine to hear Carter’s untimely personal restraint petition (PRP) and held that Carter was erroneously sentenced as a persistent offender under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW. We reverse and remand because the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the actual innocence doctrine to hear Carter’s untimely PRP prior to considering Carter’s other claimed exceptions to the time bar in RCW 10.73.090.
FACTS AND…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Murray v. CarrierSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Herrera v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Brown v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Sawyer v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- In re the Personal Restraint of HaghighiWashington Supreme Court · 2013
- In re the Personal Restraint of WeberWashington Supreme Court · 2012
- Hooley v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 2023
- State v. Martinez-LeonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Putz v. GoldenDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2012
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.