Pirtle claim in Washington

2010The court then addressed Pirtle’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney did not object to testimony and the court held that the underlying substantive claim failed because “even if there [was] an evidentiary error ..., such an error does not constitute a ‘fundamental defect’ amounting to a ‘miscarriage of justice’ entitling Pirtle to relief, especially in light of Pirtle’s own testimony.” Pirtle, 136 Wn.2d at 489 (quoting Cook, 114 Wn.2d at 811 ).

2010The court then addressed Pirtle's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney did not object to testimony and the court held that the underlying substantive claim failed because "even if there [was] an evidentiary error ..., such an error does not constitute a `fundamental defect' amounting to a `miscarriage of justice' entitling Pirtle to relief, especially in light of Pirtle's own testimony." Pirtle, 136 Wash.2d at 489 , 965 P.2d 593 (quoting Cook, 114 Wash.2d at 811 , 792 P.2d 506 ).

2010The court then addressed Pirtle's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney did not object to testimony and the court held that the underlying substantive claim failed because "even if there [was] an evidentiary error ..., such an error does not constitute a `fundamental defect' amounting to a `miscarriage of justice' entitling Pirtle to relief, especially in light of Pirtle's own testimony." Pirtle, 136 Wash.2d at 489 , 965 P.2d 593 (quoting Cook, 114 Wash.2d at 811 , 792 P.2d 506 ).

2010The court then addressed Pirtle's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney did not object to testimony and the court held that the underlying substantive claim failed because "even if there [was] an evidentiary error ..., such an error does not constitute a `fundamental defect' amounting to a `miscarriage of justice' entitling Pirtle to relief, especially in light of Pirtle's own testimony." Pirtle, 136 Wash.2d at 489 , 965 P.2d 593 (quoting Cook, 114 Wash.2d at 811 , 792 P.2d 506 ).

1998If he was being interrogated by Deputy Walker upon his arrest, Pirtle argues the statement would have been excluded under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1998If he was being interrogated by Deputy Walker upon his arrest, Pirtle argues the statement would have been excluded under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1995On the merits, Pirtle's claim is very similar to that made in In re Rupe, 115 Wash.2d 379 , 798 P.2d 780 (1990) ( Rupe III).

1995On the merits, Pirtle's claim is very similar to that made in In re Rupe, 115 Wash.2d 379 , 798 P.2d 780 (1990) ( Rupe III).

2010The court then addressed Pirtle's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney did not object to testimony and the court held that the underlying substantive claim failed because "even if there [was] an evidentiary error ..., such an error does not constitute a `fundamental defect' amounting to a `miscarriage of justice' entitling Pirtle to relief, especially in light of Pirtle's own testimony." Pirtle, 136 Wash.2d at 489 , 965 P.2d 593 (quoting Cook, 114 Wash.2d at 811 , 792 P.2d 506 ).

2010The court also held that Pirtle did not show a "reasonable probability the proceeding's outcome *933 would be different" had his attorney not opened the door to "Pirtle's lack of remorse." Pirtle, 136 Wash.2d at 490-91 , 965 P.2d 593 .