Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Paramjit Singh Basra, Petitioner v. Washington

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Paramjit Singh Basra

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

State of Washington

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

) Washington

State Court of Appeals Division One

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Paramjit Singh Basra. DOC# 357517

(Your Name)

191 Constantine Way

(Address)

Aberdeen. Washington. 98520

(City, State, Zip Code)

N/A

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1.) Is it lawfully permissible for a State to convict a person

twice for a single crime?

2.) Is it lawfully permissible for a State's Judiciary to abuse

its authority by arbitrarily abrogating its statutory

duty

address duly-filed appeals for remedy from "Double Jeopardy"?

{

r

\

.J

i

to

LIST OF PARTIES

[x] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

RELATED CASES

*

Basra v. RJC Jail, No. 2:18-cv-00186-TSZ-BAT, u.s.

District Court for the Western District of Washington.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

i

LIST OF PARTIES

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

iv

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

. 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

4

CONCLUSION

8

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Decision of Washington Court of Appeals

APPENDIX B Decision State Trial Court

APPENDIX C Decision of Washington Supreme Court

APPENDIX D Motion To Dismiss All Charges CrR 8.3(b)

APPENDIX E Letter From the Defendant Filed April 20,2012

APPENDIX F Letter To Attorney Dated March 12,2012, and Mail Log

APPENDIX G Letter To Appellate Attorney Dated January 10,2020

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES

Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678(1946)

7

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204(2014)

6

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137(1803)

7

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S.

7

(2017)

FEDERAL STATUTES

28 U.S.C.§1257(a)

1

Fed.R.Evid.201

3,5

STATE CASES

State v. Anthony P. Johnson, 113 Wn.App. 482(2002)

4

State v. Daniels, 124 Wn.App. 830(2004)

4

State v. Faagata, 147 Wn.App. 236(2008)

4

State v. Gaul, 2011 Wash.App.LEXIS 1438(2011)

5

State v. Ish, 150 Wn.App. 775(2009)

4

State v. Jess R. Smith, 148 Wn.App. 1021(2009)

4

State v. M.D.S., 2003 Wash.App.LEXIS 2059(2003)

4

State v. Quinn, 2003 Wash.App.LEXIS 2613(2003)

4

State V. Shelley, 2003 Wash.App.LEXIS 1723(2003)

4

State V. Sonneland, 80 Wn.2d 343(1972)

6

State v. Starrish, 86 Wn.2d 200(1975)

5

In Re Pers. of Hinton, 152 Wn.2d 853(2003)

3

STATE STATUTES

Criminal Court Rule (CrR) 8.3(b)

2,3,5,6

Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP)

2,7

Wash.Rev.Code §2.08.240

2,7

iv

Wash.Rev.Code §9.94A.411

5

Wash.Rev.Code §9A.32.030

2

WashRev.Code §9A.32.050

3

OTHERS

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) §1,2,7,8,9....

(12/10/1948)

v

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

respectfully

Petitioner, Paramjit Singh Basra, Pro se,

petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the

judgment of

Washington State Court of Appeals Division One in this case.

OPINIONS BELLOW

The opinion (review denied) of

the

Supreme

Court

of

Washington was filed on January 8, 2020, reported at No.977089, and is reproduced at Appendix C. Following the

the Court of Appeals of Washington

reported

opinion of

at 10 Wn.App.2d

279(2019) is reproduced at Appendix A.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

§1 257(a). Jurisdiction is proper because the

decision of the

Washington Supreme Court was filed on January 8, 2020.

This

petition for a writ of certiorari is filed within 150 days of

with

the order review denied accordance

Rule 13.1 and 13.3,

pursuant to this Court's order Thursday ..-Malrch 19, 2020.

This

petition is timely.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Fifth Amendment to the

United

prohibits "Double Jeopardy", yet

States Constitution

Washington

,the

State

of

Obdurately restrains Petitioner under

double

jeopardy for a

single crime.

Washington State Constitution, Article IV,

provides in part that every

cause

Section 20,

submitted to a judge of a

superior court for his decision shall be decided by him within

1

ninety days from the submission thereof provided.

CrR 8.3(b) provides time-limitless path for redress from

arbitrary action or governmental misconduct..., yet the State

of Washington's

courts

refuse

to

duly address appeals for

justice by the petitioner.

Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) 16.4(c)(6):

The conditions or

manner of

the restraint of petitioner are

in violation of United States or the Constitution or

laws of

the State of Washington.

RCW 2.08.240. provides in part that every case submitted

to a judge of a superior court for his or her

decision shall

be decided by him or her within ninety days from the submission

thereof provided.

OTHERS

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)(12/10/1948).

STATEMENT OF THE. CASE

The petitioner was initially charged under

Case No. 09-

1-05492-1KNT with One Count of 2nd Degree Attempted Murder on

July 29,2009. An Amended Information was filed on

August 04,

2009, for One Count of 2nd Degree Murder following the victim'

s death on July 30,2009.

On January 9,2012, (Twenty-Nine months later),

without

discovering any new evidence, during trial, the State of Wash­

ington filed a 'Second Amended Information

reflects:

Count

One, Murder in the First Degree RCW 9A.32.030(1)(a),Count Two,

Murder in the Second Degree, while committing

2

the

crime

of

Assault in the Second Degree RCW 9A.32.050(1)(b)(A nonexistent

Degree

crime in the State of Washington, Felony Murder Second

pursuant to In Re Pers. of Hinton, 152 Wn.2d 853, 857-58( 2003))

The 'Second Amended Information' was filed following petiteioner s refusal to accept the State's plea offer of the Manslaugto

hter in the First Degree.(Petitioner moves the Court

take

Judicial Notice of United States District Court Case No. 2:18—

cv-00186-TSZ-BAT, Dkt. #11, Exhibit 47, attached Exhibit I, J,

K, L. (Fed.R.Evid.201)).

Due to Multiplicitous/defective/unconstitutional indict­

ment, wrong jury instructions and instigative closing arguments

by the State, jury convicted the petitioner on both

counts of

murder for the same 'one' decedent.

Commencing at sentencing on

himself filed with

the

trial

April 20, 2012,

court a

Petitioner

letter/motion

asking

dismissal, under CrR 8.3(b)(Appendix E); after requesting

attorney to file pursuant to said Criminal

Court

his

Rule, which

his attorney declined to do (appendix F). The trial court

did

not rule upon said motion.

Petitioner again originated this

action

in

the

State

trial court on April 27,2016, as a motion to dismiss under CrR

4

8.3(b)#' The trial court erroneously attempted to transfer

the

matter to Washington Court of Appeals, for consideration

as a

Personal Restraint Petition. The Court of Appeals rejected the

transfer, remanding the matter back to

the

consideration. The trial court then exercised

* (Appendix D)

3

trial

its

court

for

discretion

and denied to rule on the merits/relief. Accordingly, petitio­

ner appealed the decision through the State Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Following affirmation, petitioner has exerted

this

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This Petition triggers Part III, Rule 10 invoking Supreme

Court Review because the

State

of

Washington

has

"so

far

departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proce­

edings" that are directly contrary to Fifth Amend, protections

regarding Double Jeopardy.

The petitioner's 5th Amend, protection

against

Double

Jeopardy' has been violated in the form of charging with mult­

iple separate counts of murder for only ONE decedent. The State

of Washington

has

a

history

of

charging

defendants

with

multiple separate counts of murder

against

one

See

victim.

State v. Anthony Paul Johnson, King County Case No. 99-1-50323

-2SEA; 113 Wn.App. 482(2002);

State

v.

Jess

Richard Smith,

King County Case No. 00-C-05900-7A KNT; 148 Wn.App.1021(2009);

State v. Ish, Pierce County Case No. 05-1-01516-2; 150 Wn.App.

775(2009); State v. Daniels, Pierce County Case No. 00-1-05286

-5; 124 Wn.App. 830(2004); State v. M.D.S.,

Snohomish

County

Case No. 01-8-00980-0; 2003 Wash.App. LEXIS 2059(2003);

State

V. Shelley, Snohomish County Case No. 02-1-00250-6; 2003 Wash.

App. LEXIS 1723(2003); State v. Quinn, King County Case No. 94

-1-08389-5; 2003 Wash.App. LEXIS 2613(2003); State v. Faagata,

Pierce County Case No. 06-1—3067-4; 147 Wash.App. 236 ( 2008);

4

State v. Gaul, Clark County Case No. 08-1-00026-5;

app. LEXIS 1438(2011)(Petitioner

Judicial

moves

this

2011 Wash.

Court

to

take

Notice of the aforementioned cases Fed.R.Evid. 201).

Charging defendants in this way is

directly

in violation

of

"justice"

the Fifth Amendment of the United States, this sort

is not only unlawful, but most certainly inhuman. Intervention

this

by this Honorable Court has become necessary,

to

cease

type of criminal prosecution which leads to an

unfair

trial,

protecting the citizen of Washington State, pursuant to

safe­

guard of the United States Constitution. The

State

laws also

prohibiting the prosecutor to overcharge to

obtain

a

guilty

per RCW 9.94A.411(2)(a)(ii)(A)(B).

Two murder convictions by a jury for one

human

being's

death is axiomatic proof of an unfair trial, further

evidence

of.denial of foundational

Constitutional

rights

secured by

the Fifth Amendment of the United States.

Not only is the gross violation of double murder conviction for one victim self-evident,

also

the

hostility after Petitioner's refusal of a

plea

settlement is

legally wrong. CrR 8.3(b)

says

but

that

the

trial

"dismiss any criminal prosecution due

to

arbitrary

State's

court

action or

governmental misconduct where there has been prejudice to

rights to the accused which

materially

affect

may

the

the accused's

right to a fair trial". The Court has listed the type of cases

which it regarded sufficient to support a dismissal. See State

v. Starrish, 86 Wn.2d 200, 206, 544 P.2d 1(1975) Fn. 9: "E.g.,

5

State v. Sonneland, 80 Wn.2d 343,494 P.2d 469(1972)(an amended

information charging defendant with a felony after the prosec­

utor had agreed to charge him with a lesser crime in

exchange

for information constituted arbitrary action and was

properly

dismissed)" Therefore, for those cases in which the right to a

fair trial has been denied based on arbitrary action or govern

ment misconduct, any criminal

prosecution

may

be

dismissed

whether that prosecution has just begun, is in middle or

has

NO

TIME

There

resulted in a tainted conviction.

simply

is

CONSTRAINT.

Language of CrR 8.3(b): "in the furtherance

of justice"

itself strongly describes the purpose of the rule 'to

Sonneland, I'd

accused persons from arbitrary action...'

346 which means this rule is not subject

would be absurd and contrary to the

protect

to

purpose

at

construction. It

of

the

Rule to

articulate it with the definition of the prosecution and

limitations. "Especially, in the interpretation of a

time

criminal

statute to the rule of lenity, the United States Supreme Court

cannot give the text a meaning

that

is

different

from

its

ordinary, accepted meaning, and that disfavors the defendant."

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204, 216, 134 S.Ct. 881,187

L.Ed.2d 715(2014) .

Furthermore, the Washington Court of Appeals has conceded

and justified that "Basra... accurately pointed

out

that

CrR

8.3(b) did not contain an explicit, time limit." (See Appendix

A @ page 2).

6

State of

Neither Judge Gain nor any commissioner in the

Washington has honored their obligation to rule on the merits

when this defendant alleged "arbitrary action/government mis­

conduct". RCW 2.08.240; Article IV, §20,

of

the

Washington

this

Constitution. Nevertheless, State courts refuse address

plain and obvious breach of Constitutional law. See Ziglar v.

Abbasi, 582 U.S.

198 L.Ed.2d 290(2017) at 328:

137 S.Ct.

"it is a settled and invariable principle,

that every right,

when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper

redress." (citing

Marbury

v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,163(1803)).

"Where federally protected rights have been

invaded,

it

has

been the rule from the beginning that courts will be alert to

adjust their remedies so as to

grant

the

necessary relief."

(citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 (1946)). At 328:

The

Chief Justice then wrote: "The government of United States has

been emphatically termed a 'government of laws and not of men'.

It will [not] deserve this high appellation, if the laws furn­

ish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." Ibid.

This is prima facie case of miscarriage of justice that calls

for remedy by means of injunction by the Highest Court in the

Nation.

As defined in RAP 16.4(c)(6), the restraint of the peti­

tioner is of an "unlawful Nature" because "material facts exist

which have not been heard" and rule upon in

spite

of

their

exhaustive presentation by the petitioner,

"which,

in

the

interest of justice require vacation of the sentence".

7

The Supreme Court of The United States hereby invoked to

uphold the United Nation's 12/10/1948 (UDHR)

to

ensure that

Petitioner is provided "equality in dignity and rights"

(§1),

an "entitlement without distinction of

for

any

kind" (§2),

"equal protection of the law" (§7), "right to effective remedy"

(§8), and prohibition of "arbitrary detention" (§9).

Petitioner is illiterate in the

English

language.

court appointed appellate attorney declined to file a

His

writ of

certiorari, which is an obligation for him pursuant to Criminal

Justice Act (CJA). (Appendix G). So, petitioner received help

from an inmate to prepare this proceeding.

Any deficiency in

the proceeding should be excused.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court

should

grant the

petition for a writ of certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

Parartf|lV SinglTWsra, Pro Se

DATED this 3rd day of June 2020.

8