F|LED 5!6!2019 Court oprpea|s Division l State of Washington IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASH|NGTON ln the l/latter of the Personal Restraint Of NO. 74576-0-| l/llCHAEL E. |/IOCKOVAK, DlVlS|ON ONE Petitioner. UNPUBL|SHED OP|N|ON FILED: I/|ay 6, 2019 APPELVvch, C.J. -- ln 2011, a jury convicted l/lockovak of attempted first degree murder, solicitation to commit first degree murder, first degree theft, and conspiracy to commit first degree theft. This court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal and later denied his personal restraint petition, ln this second petition, l/lockovak argues that the State Withhe|d material exculpatory information about the citizenship status of its key Witness. And, he asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective Because the petition is untimely and no exception to the time bar exists, We deny his petition, FACTS ln 2011, a jury found l/lichael l/lockovak guilty of soliciting and attempting to murder his business partner, among other charges l/lockovak’s convictions arose out of a joint federal-state investigation l/lockovak v. King Ctv., No. 74459- 3-|, slip op. at 2 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2016) (unpublished), http://www.courts.Wa.gov/opinions/pdf/744593.pdf. The joint investigation used a NO. 74576-0-|/2 confidential informant named Danie| Kultin, a Russian emigrant and l/lockovak’s employee l_d_. The King County Prosecuting Attorney (KCPA) and the United States Department of Justice agreed that the State should prosecute l/lockovak under state law. l_d_. at 3. This court affirmed the judgment and sentence on appeall and later denied his personal restraint petition (PRP). gt_._ at 2. On November 20, 2013, shortly after the Supreme Court denied his petition y for review of this court’s decision in his direct appeal, l/lockovak sent a Pub|ic Records Act1 (PRA) request to the KCPA. State v. l/lockovak, 178 Wn.2d 1022, 312 P.3d 650 (2013). l/lockovak sought all documents in the KCPA’s possession referring to Kultin. l/lockovak then filed suit under the PRA against King County (County), alleging that he had not received any of the records that he requested The County and the KCPA soon began providing records, but many were redacted to protect work product. l/lockovak, No, 74459-3-|, slip op. at 3. The trial court granted summaryjudgment to the County and KCPA in November 2015. li at 4. g On l/lockovak’s appeal of the PRA case, this court stated, [Tjhe County and the KCPA argue that the documents at issue contain no information about Kultin’s immigration status that l/lockovak did not know already. Specifically, they highlight five factual matters for which l/lockovak seeks evidence First, Kultin was a lawful permanent resident at the time of trial rather than a U[nited] S[tates] citizen. Second, Kultin was in the United States on asylum status Third, the immigration and Naturalization Service (lNS) arrested Kultin in 1997. Fourth, the United States never offered Kultin immigration assistance for his help as an informant and witness. Fifthl Kultin had an application for citizenship pending at the time of trial. 1 Chapter 42.56 RCW. NO. 74576-0-|/3 l/lockovak, No. 74459-3-|, slip op. at 36-37. This court found, The record shows ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals