## Facts

- The State of Washington prosecuted John Tortorelli for conduct arising from his business of salvaging stray logs and submerged trees from Lake Washington.
- A jury found Tortorelli guilty of theft, trafficking in stolen property, and criminal profiteering.
- After the Washington Court of Appeals rejected his direct appeal, Tortorelli filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) in the Washington Supreme Court seeking release from custody.
- Tortorelli argued the State failed to prove an element of theft—taking “the property of another”—because, in his view, the logs and submerged trees were not state-owned.
- Tortorelli claimed he owned the recovered materials under the common-law “law of finds,” which he characterized as granting title to the first person to discover and reduce to possession unknown or abandoned items found in the water.
- Washington’s legal framework addressed ownership of aquatic lands and certain natural resources, and it also included statutes dealing with recovered “stray logs.”
- The record described both ordinary stray logs and an “ancient submerged forest” on the lake bottom near Mercer Island—trees preserved underwater and treated by the State as having historic and scientific value.
- The State presented its case on the theory that the logs and submerged trees were “property of another,” specifically property owned by the State under the Washington Constitution and Washington statutes governing aquatic lands and recovered timber.
- Tortorelli also raised claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and other asserted errors as grounds for collateral relief.

## Issues

1. Was there sufficient legal and evidentiary support to treat the salvaged logs and submerged trees as “the property of another” (the State) for purposes of Washington’s theft statute, defeating Tortorelli’s “law of finds” ownership theory?
2. Did Tortorelli receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial or on appeal under the constitutional standard requiring deficient performance and resulting prejudice?
3. Did Tortorelli establish the level of prejudice or fundamental unfairness required for relief in a Washington personal restraint petition?

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held, as a matter of law, that the State owned the salvaged logs and submerged trees from Lake Washington.
- The court rejected Tortorelli’s argument that the “law of finds” gave him ownership of the recovered materials.
- The court concluded that Tortorelli did not show entitlement to collateral relief on his ineffective assistance claims or on his other asserted grounds.
- The personal restraint petition was denied, leaving Tortorelli’s convictions and sentence intact.
- The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment in place without a merits ruling by the federal high court.

## Legal Principles

- Theft under Washington law requires proof that the defendant wrongfully obtained or exerted unauthorized control over “the property of another.”
- The State may own interests in aquatic lands and associated natural resources under the Washington Constitution and statutory law; those ownership interests can satisfy the “property of another” element in theft-related prosecutions.
- Common-law doctrines such as the “law of finds” do not confer private ownership where state constitutional or statutory provisions establish state ownership of the resource at issue.
- In a Washington personal restraint petition, collateral relief generally requires a showing of actual and substantial prejudice from constitutional error, or a fundamental defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of deficient performance and prejudice; counsel is not constitutionally ineffective for failing to prevail on arguments that lack legal merit.
- A denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court is not a decision on the merits; it simply declines review and leaves the lower court judgment intact.

## Conclusion

In *In re the Personal Restraint of John Tortorelli*, the Washington Supreme Court denied collateral relief after concluding that logs and ancient submerged trees recovered from Lake Washington were owned by the State as a matter of law, making them “property of another” for theft purposes and defeating Tortorelli’s “law of finds” claim of ownership; the court also rejected his ineffective assistance and other PRP claims for failure to meet the demanding standards for collateral relief, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s later denial of certiorari left that judgment undisturbed.


In re the Personal Restraint of John Tortorelli, 66 P.3d 606, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 875 (2003)