Criminal Law

Factual Basis for a Washington Guilty Plea

April 30, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A guilty plea by a Washington criminal defendant must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. A plea can only be voluntary if the defendant understands both the nature of the charges against him or her and the consequences of pleading guilty. The trial court must be “satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.” CrR 4.2.

A defendant recently challenged his guilty plea, arguing there was not a sufficient factual basis for the sentencing enhancement. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant pleaded guilty to first degree manslaughter with a deadly weapon sentencing enhancement. The defendant gave a brief statement of guilt stating he “acted recklessly and caused the death of [the victim],” with no mention of a deadly weapon. Although there was a box on the form to indicate the defendant did not make a statement and had agreed the court could review other documents for the factual basis, it was not checked.

The trial court accepted the plea. The defendant was sentenced to 158 months, increased to 182 months with the sentencing enhancement.

Washington Felony Protection Order Violation Convictions Reduced to Misdemeanors

April 15, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Pursuant to RCW 26.50.110(5), violation of certain Washington protection orders is a class C felony if the defendant has two or more prior convictions for violating specified types of protection orders. A defendant recently challenged his felony convictions, arguing the state failed to prove the validity of one of his prior convictions.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant entered a guilty plea to violating a protection order in 1992. The county clerk’s office destroyed most of the related records since then. In 2019, the only record left was a seven-page document titled “DOCKET.” This document contained clerk entries related to the prosecution of that case.

In 2019, the district court in another county entered a no-contact order prohibiting the defendant from contacting his girlfriend. He was later charged with three counts of felony violation of a no-contact order based on alleged calls he made to her from jail. He was charged with felonies based on the state’s allegations he had two previous convictions for violating an order. If he did not have prior convictions, the alleged violations would just be misdemeanors instead of felonies.

Washington Arson Convictions Reversed Due to Admission of Hearsay Evidence

March 16, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Generally, hearsay is excluded from evidence, though there are some exceptions. Hearsay is a statement made outside court and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. ER 801. If, however, the prosecution in a Washington criminal case wants to present an out-of-court statement for a purpose other than its truth, the court must consider whether that purpose is relevant. If the purpose is not relevant, the statement should be excluded.

A defendant recently challenged his convictions after the trial court admitted a statement from dispatch over his objection. According to the appeals court’s opinion, officers responded to a call from a father who reported being involved in an argument with his son, the defendant. The caller said his son had put gasoline into two paper cups. When the officers arrived at the gas station, they could not find either the father or the defendant. One officer drove toward the father’s house. He saw the defendant walking along the road with a grocery bag.

The officer called out to the defendant by name over the car’s speaker and the defendant lay on the ground. When the other officer arrived, the defendant was sitting on the ground. The bag in his hand was leaking something that smelled like gas. He asked if he was free to go. When the officers told him he was, he started walking toward his father’s home.

Court Should Apply Market Value in Washington Theft Cases

February 25, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The value of property can affect the degree and seriousness of a Washington theft crime. In a recent unpublished case, a juvenile challenged his second degree theft conviction, arguing the trial court had used the wrong methodology for determining the value of the property.

A deputy testified he met with the juvenile and his mother after responding to a call reporting a possible theft. The deputy testified the juvenile admitted he had taken a ring out of his mother’s jewelry box.

A jeweler testified that the replacement cost of the ring was $1,200, based on making a new ring. The jeweler also testified that used jewelry did not get the same price as new and that the ring might be sold to a jeweler for $340. A dealer might be able to sell it then for $600 or $700.

Animal Cruelty May Be Designated Crime of Domestic Violence in Washington

February 20, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a Washington crime is designated a crime of domestic violence, the alleged victim is afforded certain additional protections. Such cases get priority scheduling. Courts may issue pre-trial no-contact orders and specialized no-contact orders at sentencing. A defendant recently challenged the domestic violence designation and aggravators applied to his animal cruelty conviction.

According to the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion, the defendant had been abusive to both his girlfriend and her dog. After taking the dog for a walk over his girlfriend’s objection, he called her and told her the dog had escaped the harness. His girlfriend could hear the dog yelping and did not think she had escaped.

Two witnesses heard noises and saw the defendant beating the dog. One witness called the police while the other yelled for the defendant to stop. After exchanging some words with the witness, the defendant ultimately walked away.

Washington Appeals Court Rejects First Amendment Challenge to Stalking Conviction

January 31, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The First Amendment protects the right to free speech. A defendant recently challenged a felony stalking conviction, arguing it was based solely on protected speech.

The defendant was retried after his conviction was reversed on appeal.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, an employee of the county corrections center testified at the trial. The witness testified she had known the defendant since high school. She testified he had engaged in inappropriate behavior, including saying “raunchy” things to her. She said he behaved inappropriately toward all women. She testified he made crude comments to her on social media. When she blocked him, he would contact her through a new profile.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Mother’s Felony Harassment Conviction

January 20, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Some custody cases can become so acrimonious they result in Washington civil protection orders and even criminal court. In a recent unpublished case, a mother challenged her convictions of felony harassment and felony violation of a protection order.

When the parents divorced, the mother was awarded sole custody of the children. After the father obtained treatment for a brain injury he incurred in the military, he was given visitation. The mother would not comply with the visitation order and the father was given sole custody in September 2018.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the father found the mother attempting to break in to his home the day he took custody. She physically attacked him and his father.

Washington Conviction Reversed Due to Juror’s “Actual Bias”

December 29, 2021 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington criminal defendants are guaranteed a trial by an impartial jury under both the state and federal constitutions. The trial court should excuse a potential juror if the performance of their duties as a juror would be prevented or substantially impaired by their views. Actual bias is a basis of a for-cause challenge by either party. Actual bias occurs when the prospective juror’s state of mind that would prevent them from trying the issue impartially without prejudice to the challenging party. RCW 4.44.170. If a juror with actual bias is seated, the error is not harmless and requires a new trial. A defendant recently appealed his murder convictions, arguing the court erred in seating a juror with actual bias.

A young Canadian couple was killed while traveling to Seattle in 1987. Their bodies were discovered in different counties. A DNA profile was developed from DNA retrieved from the woman’s body and clothing. The male victim was excluded as the source of that DNA. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the defendant was identified as a potential source of the DNA profile in 2018 through genealogy matching. The defendant’s DNA was matched to the profile from the female victim’s pants and body after undercover officers collected a coffee cup he discarded.

The state charged the defendant with two counts of first degree aggravated murder. In an individualized inquiry, a potential jury expressed uncertainty she could be fair. She thought the topics and evidence may be difficult for her because of her own traumatic experiences in the past. The defendant moved to dismiss the juror for cause, but the trial court denied the motion. That potential juror was seated on the jury.

Washington Juvenile Drug Possession Adjudication Vacated Under Blake

December 23, 2021 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In State v. Blake in 2021, the Washington Supreme Court determined that Washington’s strict liability drug statute violated due process because it “criminalize[d] innocent and passive possession.” This case has had a tremendous impact on Washington drug possession cases. A Washington criminal conviction that is based on an unconstitutional statute is required to be vacated. A number of cases under the previous version of R.C.W. 69.50.4013(1) have been overturned as a result of the Blake decision. Recently, a juvenile appealed his drug possession adjudication under a different statute, arguing it should also be vacated due to the court’s holding in Blake.

The juvenile was found guilty of violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act under former R.C.W. 69.50.4014. He appealed, arguing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Blake required his adjudication to be vacated. He argued the applicable version of R.C.W. 69.50.4014 was unconstitutional and void based on the reasoning in Blake.

The state argued that Blake did not void the applicable version of R.C.W. 69.50.4014 because that charge carried a lesser punishment than the statute Blake found was unconstitutional. The appeals court rejected the state’s argument, noting the Blake court did not base its decision on the severity of the punishment. The Blake decision was instead based on the statute’s lack of an intent element.

Restoration of Washington Gun Rights After Blake Decision

November 21, 2021 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington criminal conviction can have significant and lasting consequences. Convictions may result in greater sentences for subsequent offenses, the loss of firearm rights, and the loss of voting rights. In some circumstances, some rights may be restored. In a recent case, a man who had lost his firearm rights following a felony conviction was denied restoration based on a prior misdemeanor possession conviction.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the petitioner was convicted of misdemeanor possession of less than 40 grams of marijuana under former RCW 69.50.401(e), a strict liability offense, in 2003. The following year, he pleaded guilty to felony manufacturing methamphetamine. The judgment and sentence stated the maximum penalty was 10 years and did not list his prior conviction. The petitioner lost the right to use or possess firearms as a result of the 2004 felony conviction.

The petitioner sought restoration of his firearm rights in 2020. The state argued he was not eligible for restoration because the maximum sentence should have been 20 years instead of the state 10 years. The state argued the 2003 conviction automatically triggered the doubling provision of RCW 69.50.408. RCW 69.50.408 allows the doubling of a sentence for a conviction under Chapter 69.50, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, if the defendant had a prior conviction under Chapter 69.50 or a federal or another state’s law related to narcotics, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, or hallucinogenic drugs.