In re Personal Restraint of Carter (Concurrence)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In re Personal Restraint of Carter (Ernest A.) No. 84606-5 Stephens, J. (concurring) I concur in the result reached by the majority because the Court of Appeals erred in applying the actual innocence doctrine before considering other available claims to avoid the time bar. We should heed our own holding and refrain from an unnecessary discussion of the parameters and application of the actual innocence doctrine. That portion of the majority opinion is dictum. With respect to the majority s description of the actual innocence doctrine, I also write separately to emphasize that it should not be read to suggest that factual innocence in the context of a persistent offender sentencing enhancement requires proof that the defendant did not commit any underlying offense. No party makes this argument. Rather, the State argues that proof of factual innocence required Mr. Ernest Carter to prove that his California conviction was based on conduct that was not factually comparable to the crime of assault in the second degree. Suppl. Br. of Resp t at 11. It would erode the very principle of recognizing actual In re Personal Restraint of Carter (Ernest A.), 84606-5 (Stephens, J. Concurrence) innocence if the court s decision were read to suggest that a defendant may be wrongfully sentenced as a persistent offender when, though actually innocent of a strike offense, he was guilty of something. With these observations, I concur. AUTHOR: Justice Debra L. Stephens WE CONCUR: Justice Tom Chambers -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
