11 We also note that in cases predating Teague, several courts held that Faretta did not apply
retroactively. Martin v. Wvrick. 568 F.2d 583, 587 (8th Cir. 1978) ("the determination that the purpose
underlying Faretta was not to enhance the fact-finding process strongly suggests the rule should not be
made retroactive."); People v. McDaniel. 16 Cal.3d 156, 166 (1976) (purpose of Faretta rule is not "to
enhance the reliability ofthe truth-determining or fact-finding process"); Scottv. State, 345 So.2d 414,
416-17 (Fl. Dist. Ct. App. 1977V Houston v. Nelson. 404 F. Supp. 1108, 1115 (D.C. Cat. 1975). But see
People v. Holcomb. 395 Mich. 326, 336 n.7 (1975).
12 RCW 10.73.100(6) states:
The time limit specified in RCW 10.73.090 does not apply to a petition or motion that is
based solely on one or more of the following grounds: . .. There has been [(1)] a
significant change in the law, whether substantive or procedural, [(2)] which is material to
the conviction, sentence, or other order entered in a criminal or civil proceeding instituted
by the state or local government, and [(3)] either the legislature has expressly provided
that the change in the law is to be applied retroactively, or a court, in interpreting a
change in the law that lacks express legislative intent regarding retroactive application,
determines that sufficient reasons exist to require retroactive application of the changed
legal standard.
(Alterations added.)
14
No. 68168-1-1/15
10.73.100 as a procedural rule that is entirely consistent with the federal retroactivity
analysis. . . . Since Teague . . . , this court has consistently and repeatedly followed and