With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prejudiced by constitutional error or that a nonconstitutional error occurred constituting a fundamental defect that inherently resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice. In re Pers. Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296, 303, 868 P.2d 835 (1994). The bar on successive petitions under RCW 10.73.140 does not apply to the state Supreme Court. In re Pers. Restraint of Johnson, 131 Wn.2d 558, 566, 933 P.2d 1019 (1997). However, where the second petition is similar to the first, “good cause” must be shown. Id. at 564-66. ANALYSIS A. Crawford’s Retroactivity ¶10 Historically, we have attempted to maintain congruence in our retroactivity analysis with the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court. See In re Pers. Restraint of Sauve, 103 Wn.2d 322, 328, 692 P.2d 818 (1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Pers. Restraint of St. Pierre, 118

A: holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states
B: holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction over a new claim or a claim of different scope that was not previously presented and certified to the contracting officer for decision
C: holding that in light of the established violation of section 401 and the supreme courts decision in wirtz the court has no discretion as to whether or not to order new elections
D: holding that the balancing test established by the united states supreme court was still appropriate to determine the retroactivity or nonretroactivity of a new decision
D.