Category Archives: Washington Court of Appeals

State v. Keodara: Overbroad Search Warrant for Cell Phone

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Due Process, Eighth Amendment, Evidence, felony, Homicide & Manslaughter, Ineffective Assistance, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Sentencing, Technology, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Image result for cell phone search

In State v. Keodara, the WA Court of Appeals ruled that a search warrant was overbroad in violation of the particularity requirement because it allowed police to search a cell phone “for items that had no association with any criminal activity and for which there was no probable cause whatsoever.”

In 2011, the defendant Say Keodara was involved in a shooting at a bus stop.  Several weeks later, police arrested him for an unrelated incident. They searched his backpack and found his cell phone. Outside the backpack police found drugs, drug packaging and drug paraphernalia.  An officer submitted an affidavit in support of a search warrant for the contents of the cell phone.

The affidavit made several generalizations about drug dealers and gang members in support of the officer’s conclusion that there was evidence of crime on the cell phone. The judge issue the warrant pursuant to the affidavit, which ultimately allowed police to search Keodara’s entire phone without any limitations.  Police searched the phone and found evidence that the State used when trying Mr. Keodara for the shooting at the bus stop.

Keodara was charged with Murder in the First Degree, three counts of Assault in the First Degree (each with a separate firearm enhancement), and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree. He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 831 months of prison (69.25 years).

On appeal, Keodara argued that the evidence from his phone should have been suppressed because the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. I, §7 of the Washington State Constitution. He also argued that his substantial prison sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.

Ultimately, the court held that although the search of Keodara’s phone violated the federal
constitution, the failure to suppress the evidence was harmless. It also held that Keodara’s sentence violated the 8th Amendment because the court failed to Keodara’s youth and other age-related factors into account. Accordingly, the court affirmed Keodara’s conviction but remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that a warrant is overbroad if it fails to describe with particularity items for which probable cause exists to search. In this case, the affidavit for the warrant for Keodara’s phone contained blanket statements about what certain groups of offenders tend to do and what information they tend to store in particular places. Furthermore, the warrant’s language also allowed Keodara’s phone to be searched for items that had no association with any criminal activity and for which there was no probable cause whatsoever. The court also said the following:

Here, no evidence was seized that would have linked Keodara’s phone to the crimes listed in the warrant-unlawful possession of firearms, possession with intent to deliver or sell narcotics, or assault. Nothing in the record suggests that anyone saw Keodara use the phone to make calls or take photos. In addition, the phone was found in a backpack, separate from the drug paraphernalia or the pistol. There was no indication that evidence of firearms or drugs were found with the phone. We conclude that the warrant was overbroad and failed to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals also held that the trial court committed harmless error in admitting evidence police found on the phone:

Here, the untainted evidence of Keodara’s guilt was strong. Cellular phone tower records placed him near the location of the shooting, two eyewitnesses identified him, and another witness testified that Keodara contacted him and told him about the shooting. We find that the trial court’s denial of Keodara’s motion to suppress does not warrant reversal and, accordingly, we affirm his convictions.

The Court of Appeals also addressed the issue of whether Keodara’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. In short, the court said, “Yes.” It reasoned that the trial court did not take into account that Keodara was a juvenile at the time he committed the crimes or consider other age related factors that weigh on culpability or his capacity for rehabilitation. Based on that, the Court concluded that the sentence imposed in this case violated Keodar’s constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

My opinion? Good decision. It appears that, more and more, our courts are rightfully acknowledging a Defendant’s youth at sentencing.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Wire Cutters Are NOT Theft Tools.

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Evidence, Knapstad Motion, Retail Theft, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Image result for wire cutters

In State v. Larson, the WA Supreme Court overruled the WA Court of Appeals and decided that the crime of Retail Theft With Special Circumstances under RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b), which elevates theft to a more serious offense when the defendant is in possession of “an item, article, implement or device designed to overcome security systems,” only applies to an item that is created – whether by the manufacturer or the defendant – with the specific purpose of disabling or evading security systems.

Defendant Zachary Larson attempted to steal a $32 pair of shoes from a Marshall’s store in Bellingham, WA. The shoes were equipped with a security device that was attached to the shoes by wire. Yet, Larson, using wire cutters that he had brought into the store, severed the wire and removed the security device. When Larson tried to leave the store, he was stopped by security employees and, subsequently, was charged with one count of Retail Theft with Special circumstances, which criminalizes the commission of retail theft while in possession of a “device designed to overcome security systems.”

While the case was pending, Larson argued a Knapstad motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion and found Larson guilty as charged. He was sentenced to 60 days of confinement. Larson appealed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals confirmed Larson’s conviction. Larson appealed again to the WA Supreme Court.

The WA Supreme Court addressed the specific issue of whether ordinary wire cutters are “designed to overcome security systems” within the context of retail theft.

The Court reasoned that whenever it must interpret the meaning and scope of a statute, “our fundamental objective is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature.” Furthermore,  lined bags and tag removers – of which the Defendant did not possess – are highly specialized tools with little to no utility outside of the commission of retail theft. “From this fact, it can be reasonably inferred that there is no reason a person would be in possession of these items except to facilitate retail theft.”

Furthermore, reasoned the court we must interpret statutes to avoid absurd results:

For example, where a person slips a stolen item into his pocket to hide it from a store’s security camera, the pocket has arguably become a “device designed to overcome security systems.” Similarly, a person who happens to have in her pocket a pair of nail clippers, a Leatherman multi tool, or any other tool that people commonly carry with them, at the time she shoplifts would be guilty of retail theft with extenuating circumstances. As these practical examples demonstrate, the State’s over-inclusive approach belies the statute’s primary purpose of capturing retail theft that occurs under certain aggravating circumstances.

The Court concluded that the plain language of the Retail Theft statute indicates that the legislature intended the statute to have a narrow scope:

We hold that “designed to overcome security systems” for the purposes of retail theft . . . is limited to those items, articles, implements, or devices created-whether by the defendant or manufacturer-with the specialized purpose of overcoming security systems. Ordinary tools, such as pliers or the wire cutters used by Larson, do not fall within the scope . . .  The evidence is insufficient to support Larson’s conviction for third degree retail theft with extenuating circumstances, and we reverse the Court of Appeals.

My opinion? Good decision. In interpreting the statute, the WA Supreme Court correctly applied a narrow scope because, quite frankly, any household tool found in the pockets of an alleged thief can be viewed as a tool “designed to overcome security systems.” This is unjust. Retail Theft With Special Circumstances is a Class C felony exposing defendants up to 5 years prison and a $10,000 fine. That’s quite serious. Do we want to punish thieves with Class C felonies for stealing shoes from Marshall’s store while carrying a Swiss Army knife in their pocket? Do these circumstances warrant sending people to prison? No. The WA Supreme Court got this one right.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Evans: A Knife is Not a Gun

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Due Process, Jury Trial, law enforcement, misdemeanor, Search and Seizure, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

In City of Seattle v. Evans, the WA Supreme Court ruled that Article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution’s protection of the right to bear “arms” does not extend to a paring knife.

Seattle Police Officer Michael Conners stopped a vehicle driven by Wayne Anthony Evans for speeding in the Central District of Seattle. As Conners approached Evans’s vehicle, he observed furtive movements from Evans and his passenger, and he smelled marijuana. Conners directed Evans to exit the vehicle and asked him whether he had any weapons. Evans responded that there was a knife in his pocket. Conners instructed Evans not to reach for the knife; Conners then reached into Evans’s front right pocket, retrieved a fixed-blade knife with a black handle, and placed Evans under arrest for possession of a fixed-blade knife.

The City of Seattle (City) charged Evans with the unlawful use of weapons in violation of SMC 12A.14.080, which reads, “It is unlawful for a person knowingly to . . . carry concealed or unconcealed on his or her person any dangerous knife, or carry concealed on his or her person any deadly weapon other than a firearm.”

The case proceeded to trial. The City’s Prosecutor introduced the knife into evidence and presented testimony from Officer Conners. Conners identified the knife that he recovered from Evans at trial and the State entered that knife into evidence. When asked, Officer Conners described the knife as having a “black handle with a metal colored blade” that was “about-about this long,” apparently gesturing with his hands. Officer Conners admitted that he was concerned that the knife had a fixed blade-that is, it had a blade that would not fold into the handle-and alternately described the blade as resembling a “kitchen knife” or a “paring knife.”

The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and Evans’s conviction was affirmed by the King County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals.

The WA Supreme Court reviewed the case on the specific issue of whether Mr. Evans’ fixed-blade knife is a protected arm under the Washington or federal constitution. Apparently, ruled the court, a knife is NOT protected as an “Arm” under the Constitution(s):

 . . . we hold that not all knives are constitutionally protected arms and that Evans does not demonstrate that his paring knife is an “arm” as defined under our state or federal constitution. Therefore, Evans cannot establish that SMC 12A.14.080(B) is unconstitutional as applied to him and we reject his as-applied challenge.

The court reasoned that although it is true that some weapons may be used for culinary purposes, as it is also true that many culinary utensils may be used when necessary for self-defense; but it does not follow that all weapons are culinary utensils or that all culinary utensils are weapons:

Were we to adopt Evans’s analysis and hold that a kitchen knife was a protected arm because it could be used for self-defense, there would be no end to the extent of utensils arguably constitutionally protected as arms. If a kitchen knife is a protected arm, what about a rolling pin, which might be effectively wielded for protection or attack? Or a frying pan? Or a heavy candlestick? “Admittedly, any hard object can be used as a weapon, but it would be absurd to give every knife, pitchfork, rake, brick or other object conceivably employable for personal defense constitutional protection as ‘arms.’

With that, the WA Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that Evans’s paring knife was not an arm entitled to constitutional protection. Therefore, Evans cannot establish that SMC 12A.14.080 is unconstitutional as applied to him.

My opinion? I hate to say, but I somewhat agree. There’s a huge difference between a gun and a knife. The right to bear arms was made to protect guns, not knives. Period.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Rich: Evidence of DUI Also Shows Reckless Driving

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Reckless Endangerment, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

In State v. Rich, the WA Supreme Court ruled that although proof of DUI alone does not necessarily establish proof of Reckless Endangerment, here, proof that a driver whose breath alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit and who showed awareness that she had done something wrong once stopped, and who sped past a police car in traffic with a young child in the front seat, was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver created a substantial risk of death or injury to her passenger; which meets the definition of Reckless Endangerment.

A jury convicted defendant Andrea Rich of driving under the influence (DUI) and Reckless Endangerment. The evidence showed that Rich was speeding in traffic while highly intoxicated and with a young child in the front passenger seat. But the officer who arrested Rich followed her car because he believed that the car was stolen. Rich’s manner of driving posed no observable danger.

The WA Court of Appeals reversed the Reckless Endangerment conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Rich’s driving created an actual, substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. It reasoned that proof of a DUI does not necessarily establish proof of Reckless Endangerment.

In response, the State Prosecutor appealed to the WA Supreme Court on the issue of whether there was sufficient to support Rich’s Reckless Endangerment conviction.

The WA Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that proof of DUI alone does not necessarily establish proof of Reckless Endangerment. The WA Supreme Court also reasoned, however, that the State proved more than just DUI in this case:

It also proved speeding, past a police car, in traffic, by a driver whose breath alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit, who showed awareness that she had done something wrong once stopped, and who had a young child in the front passenger seat. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a reasonable juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Rich created a substantial risk of death or injury to her passenger, that Rich knew of the substantial risk, and that Rich disregarded that risk in gross deviation from the way a reasonable person would act in her situation.

With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the conviction.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Meza: Freezing Funds Without a Warrant Is Unlawful

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Freezing Bank Accounts, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Image result for freezing bank funds

In State v. Meza, the WA Court of Appeals Division II held that a trial court’s order to freeze the defendant’s bank account was not a search warrant, and therefore did not satisfy the warrant requirement for the seizure of funds.

In June 2014, John Armstrong spoke with the Lewis County sheriff’s office and alleged that Rafael Meza had swindled money from him. Deputy Justin Rogers investigated Armstrong’s allegations. Rogers contacted the Twin Star Credit Union and verified that Meza held an account that had received large wire transfers recently. Rogers also learned from Mansfield that Meza recently had informed him that he was planning to go to Mexico.

Rogers served Twin Star Credit Union with a valid search warrant for Meza’s account information. Meza’s bank statements showed a check and four wire transfers from Mansfield totaling $105,000, with the last transfer on June 18. They also showed a single wire transfer from Armstrong in the amount of $15,000 on April 11. Meza’s checking account showed that between October 2013 and June 2014, he withdrew approximately $89,000 in cash in 41 transactions involving between $3,000 and $5,000 each.

On June 27, 2014, the State charged Meza with one count of Theft in the First Degree. On the same day, the State presented an ex parte “Motion for an Order Freezing and Holding Funds” to the judge. The State asserted that the funds in Meza’s credit union accounts were “evidence in a felony offense.” The State’s motion was based on the probable cause affidavit filed with the information and asserted that there was “a high likelihood, based on the affidavit regarding probable cause, that Meza will remove said funds and leave the country.”

Importantly, the State did not request a search warrant for the credit union funds or reference CrR 2.3 in its motion.

Nevertheless, the trial court signed an order directing Twin Star Credit Union to “freeze and hold all accounts in the name of . . . Meza . . . as evidence in a criminal proceeding, until further order of this Court.” Also, neither the motion nor the order cited any legal authority for freezing Meza’s accounts.

In January 2015, Meza filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s order. Meza argued that there was no legal authority for the order. The trial court denied Meza’s motion to vacate the order, saying there was probable cause to believe that Meza’s account was related to the charged crime. The court concluded that it had the authority to freeze Meza’s funds under CrR 2.3. In addition, the trial court ruled that Meza’s account qualified as both evidence of a crime and the proceeds of a crime. Meza filed a motion for discretionary review. The WA Court of Appeals accepted the case.

The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Similarly, article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution provides that “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” These provisions generally prohibit warrantless searches and seizures unless one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.

Consequently, reasoned the court, a person’s banking records fall within the constitutional protection of private affairs. Although no Washington case has addressed whether funds in a bank account can be seized without a warrant it defies reason to extend constitutional protection to bank account records but not to the funds reflected in those records. The Court emphasized that the seizure of funds is as much a threat to security in a person’s effects and a disturbance of a person’s private affairs as the seizure of the records regarding those funds:

“Here, the State cites no statute, court rule, or other authority allowing the seizure of a defendant’s bank account in these circumstances. Therefore, the seizure was not authorized by law.”

Finally, the Court rejected the State’s argument that under State v. Garcia-Salgado the trial court’s order is the functional equivalent of a search warrant.

“We hold that the Garcia-Salgado holding is limited to cases where the trial court’s order is authorized by law. Allowing a court order to function as a warrant when there is no independent authority for a seizure would render CrR 2.3 meaningless. Limiting the scope of Garcia-Salgado preserves the integrity of CrR 2.3. We hold that Garcia-Salgado is inapplicable and that the trial court’s order cannot be treated as the functional equivalent of a warrant.”

Based on these decision the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in ordering the seizure of Meza’s credit union account.

My opinion? GOOD opinion. Very sensible and reasonable. It’s refreshing that the Court of Appeals followed the law and made the right decision.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Court Reverses Pot Conviction

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Deferred Prosecution, Drug Offenses, I-502, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

 

In State v. Rose, the WA Court of Appeals Division III decided to reverse Mr. Rose’s conviction for Possession of Marijuana because Washington’s general criminal prosecution saving statute does NOT permit a prosecution for less than 1 ounce of marijuana that was pending when Initiative 502 became effective.

On June 26, 2012, defendant Justin Rose was fishing on the Yakima River below the Roza Dam when he and his companions were approached by a Washington Fish and Wildlife agent interested in checking for their fishing licenses. The Fish and Wildlife agent noticed that Mr. Rose was smoking. Based on the agent’s training and experience, he believed Mr. Rose was smoking marijuana from a bong. When the agent told Mr. Rose what he had seen, Mr. Rose admitted he had been smoking marijuana and handed over the bong, which contained some marijuana, to the agent. Mr. Rose was over age 21 at the time. He was charged with one violation of RCW 69.50.4014 (possession of less than 40 grams of marijuana) and one violation of former RCW 69.50.412(1) (2002) (use of drug paraphernalia).

In October 2012, Mr. Rose entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the State, staying the prosecution. For those who don’t know, a deferred prosecution is an agreement between someone who is charged with a crime and the State Attorney’s Office. This agreement will require that within a specified period of time, the person charged with a crime will complete all requirements in the agreement. The State agreed that if Mr. Rose complied with the conditions. identified in the agreement for one year, it would move to dismiss both charges. The conditions imposed on Mr. Rose included performing community service, paying a fee and costs, obtaining an alcohol and drug evaluation, and fully complying with any recommendation of alcohol or drug treatment or other services resulting from the evaluation.

Initiative 502 came into effect while Mr. Rose’s case was pending. The law unconditionally decriminalized possession of less than one ounce of marijuana by persons 21 and over, and did remove marijuana paraphernalia from the unlawful categories of paraphernalia.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rose  violated the conditions of his deferral agreement by failing to enter into an intensive outpatient treatment program. The district court revoked the agreement, proceeded to a bench trial, and found Mr. Rose guilty of both counts.

Before sentencing, Mr. Rose moved to dismiss the charges based on the decriminalization of his offenses by I-502. The district court denied Mr. Rose’s motion. It recognized that RCW 10.01.040 – which provides that offenders are prosecuted under the laws in effect at the time of their offenses – does not apply if intervening legislation conveys a contrary intent. It sentenced Mr. Rose to 180 days confinement. Mr. Rose appealed to the Superior Court, which upheld his convictions. In response, he successfully appealed his case to the WA Court of Appeals.

The WA Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Rose’s convictions. It acknowledged that  although the common law provides that pending cases be decided according to the law in effect at the time of the decision, the Washington legislature adopted a criminal prosecution saving statute, now codified at RCW 10.01.040, whose saving clause “presumptively ‘save[s]’ all offenses already committed and all penalties or forfeitures already incurred from the effects of amendment or repeal,” requiring that they be prosecuted under the law in effect at the time they were committed “unless,” as the statute provides, “a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act.”

Here, the WA Court of Appeals sought to reconcile these countervailing laws.

The Court reasoned that in this case – and unlike actual laws written legislatures – we are dealing with an initiative to the legislature:

“While standard rules of statutory construction apply, our concern is with the intent of the voters. The issue is whether an intent by the voters to apply its decriminalization provisions to stop pending prosecutions is fairly conveyed by the initiative.”

The Court further reasoned that we look at the language of 1-502 from the perspective of the average informed lay voter rather than from the perspective of the legislature. It acknowledged that average lay voters presented with an initiative that they are told will stop treating adult marijuana use as a crime are more likely to make the assumption that prosecution will be stopped on the effective date. Consequently, and in these rare cases where legislation includes additional language that conveys disapproval or concern about continued prosecution, the Court felt compelled to respect the intent of the voters.

My opinion? Good decision. Washington General Criminal Prosecution Saving Statute should not allow prosecutors to enforce archaic laws which were ultimately killed by the will of the voters. Period. Kudos to Division III.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Cruel & Unusual Punishment?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Eighth Amendment, felony, Methamphetamine, Search and Seizure, Strict Liability, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

In State v. Schmeling, the WA Court of Appeals Division II decided that Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance is constitutional as applied under the Eighth Amendment and under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause even though the statute makes possession of very small amounts of a controlled substance a felony without knowledge of possession or intent to possess.

Here, as part of a theft investigation, law enforcement officers searched Richard Schmeling’s car and uncovered two small baggies that contained white residue. The residue was tested and turned out to be methamphetamine. The State charged Schmeling with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. Schmeling’s first trial ended in a mistrial because of a hung jury. On retrial, the jury convicted Schmeling. He appealed his conviction on the argument that RCW 69.50.4013 violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process because it makes possession of drug residue a felony without requiring any culpable mental state.

The Court of appeals reasoned that Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The basic concept of the Eighth Amendment is that punishment for a crime must be proportionate to the offense. There are two types of Eighth Amendment analysis: (1) determining whether a sentence is disproportionate to the particular crime, and (2) using categorical rules to define constitutional standards for certain classes of crimes or offenders.

  1. WAS SCHMELING’S SENTENCE PROPORTIONATE TO HIS CRIME?

The Court gave historical background showing that many Eighth Amendment cases address whether a particular punishment is disproportionate to the crime. The Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence and forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. Most courts have shown a reluctance to review legislatively mandated sentences. As a result, successful challenges to the proportionality of sentences are exceedingly rare.

Here, Schmeling argues that classifying possession of small amounts of a controlled substance as a felony without a knowledge or intent constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the WA Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in State v. Smith. In that case, Smith was convicted of possession of more than 40 grams of marijuana, which was punished as a felony. He argued that the seriousness of the offense did not warrant classifying his crime as a felony. The court rejected Smith’s argument, noting that it was unaware of any authority supporting the proposition that classification alone could constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The court also held that Smith’s actual sentence was not grossly disproportionate to his offense. Consequently, under the traditional proportionality analysis, Smith controls. Therefore, classification of a crime as a felony despite the absence of a knowledge or intent requirement does not result in grossly disproportionate punishment.

2. WAS SCHMELING’S SENTENCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE OR THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENDER?

This analysis involves two steps. First, the reviewing court considers “objective indicia of society’s standards (categorical approach), as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice” to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue. Second, the reviewing court considers precedent and its own understanding and interpretation of the Eighth Amendment to determine in the exercise of its own independent judgment whether the punishment is unconstitutional.

The Court acknowledged that Schmeling wanted them to apply a categorical approach. However, the Court of Appeals declined to apply the categorical approach to punishment of adult drug offenders like Schmeling. It held that under State v. Smith, RCW 69.50.4013 does not violate the Eighth Amendment even though it punishes the possession of small amounts of controlled substances as a felony without imposing a knowledge or intent element.

3. DID SCHMELING’S SENTENCE VIOLATE DUE PROCESS?

In short, the Court held that RCW 69.50.4013 does NOT violate due process even though it makes possession of drug residue a crime without requiring any culpable mental state.

The court reasoned that Strict Liability Crimes – crimes with no knowledge or intent  requirement – do not necessarily violate due process. “We do not go with Blackstone in saying that ‘a vicious will’ is necessary to constitute a crime, for conduct alone without regard to the intent of the doer is often sufficient. There is wide latitude in the lawmakers to declare an offense and to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.”

The Court of Appeals further reasoned that WA’s Supreme Court repeatedly has stated that the legislature has the authority to create strict liability crimes that do not include a culpable mental state. Also, our Supreme Court twice has directly addressed in two other cases whether the elements of possession of a controlled substance under prior versions of RCW 69.50.4013 contains a knowledge or intent element. Those cases were State v. Bradshaw and State v. Cleppe. In both cases, the court held that the legislature deliberately omitted knowledge and intent as elements of the crime and that it would not imply the existence of those elements.

Here, Schmeling cites two cases from other jurisdictions holding that a strict liability offense violated due process. However, given our Supreme Court’s repeated approval of the legislature’s authority to adopt strict liability crimes, the Court found Schmelling’s arguments unpersuasive.

In sum, the Court of Appeals held that RCW 69.50.4013 does NOT violate due process even though it does not require the State to prove intent or knowledge to convict an offender of possession of a small amount of a controlled substance. It affirmed Schmeling’s conviction and sentence.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Cherry: Consent & Self-Incrimination

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, Due Process, Evidence, felony, law enforcement, Methamphetamine, Miranda, Search and Seizure, Self-Incrimination, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

In State v. Cherry, the WA Court of Appeals Division II decided that a police officer’s questions to the passengers of a vehicle – which were intended to determine whether one of the passengers could safely remove the defendant’s car from the scene – were routine booking questions and did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights.

Defendant Mathew Cherry was arrested for driving with a suspended license. He was driving two passengers. When the police officer asked Cherry to confirm who was in the car, Cherry identified his two passengers. When asked whether either passenger could take the car, Cherry responded that neither had a license and that he did not know anyone who did. The officer told Cherry that his car would be impounded.

Cherry consented to a search of his car. A pipe containing methamphetamine residue was found. When Cherry was booked into jail, he resisted a strip search and apparently swallowed the contents of a small pouch after it was seen between his legs.

The State charged Cherry with Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance and Tampering With Evidence. Cherry filed a CrR 3.6 motion to suppress the evidence found in his car, arguing that the officers threatened to have his car impounded if he did not consent to its search and that his consent was coerced. The trial court also conducted a CrR 3.5 hearing in which Cherry challenged the admission of his statements to police. At trial, a jury found Cherry guilty as charged. He appealed.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals upheld Cherry’s convictions. Here, the officer’s questions to Cherry’s passengers were not intended to and did not elicit incriminating information. Rather, the questions were intended to determine whether Cherry’s car could be safely removed from the scene.

Additionally, the court disagreed with Cherry’s arguments that officers were not permitted to ask for consent to search his car after he invoked his right to remain silent. Here, the officer informed Cherry of his Miranda rights before requesting Cherry’s consent to search the car. The court reasoned that the request for consent to search was not designed to elicit testimonial evidence and Cherry’s consent was not an incriminating statement. Therefore, law enforcement did not violate Cherry’s constitutional right to remain silent by requesting consent to search his car after Cherry had invoked that right.

Moreover, Cherry’s statements to police that he had consumed drugs earlier that day were admissible, and not made in response to any questioning likely to elicit an incriminating response. The court reasoned that even if Cherry’s statements were prompted by watching the police search his car, as Cherry now argues, they were not prompted by unlawful interrogation. There was no violation of Cherry’s right to remain silent. Therefore, his statements were properly admitted.

Finally, the court disagreed with Cherry’s arguments that his consent to search was not voluntary, and therefore, it violated the Fourth Amendment and the evidence found during the search is inadmissible. Here, under these facts, Cherry clearly consented.

For all of these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirm Cherry’s convictions.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Hampton: You Can’t Replace Your Attorney at 11th Hour.

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Jury Trial, Rape, Sex Crimes, Sixth Amendment, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Things to Consider Before Firing Your Attorney

In State v. Hampton, the WA Supreme Court decided  It was not an abuse of discretion for a trial judge to deny a defendant’s request to delay trial to allow him to replace his public defender with a private attorney.

Mr. Hampton was charged with Rape in the Second Degree. On the eve of his trial, Hampton moved to replace his appointed counsel with a new private attorney on the condition that the trial be continued so his new counsel could prepare. The trial court denied the continuance, so Hampton proceeded with his previously appointed counsel. He was ultimately convicted of Rape in the Third Degree.

The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court’s decision violated Hampton’s constitutional right to his choice of counsel because it considered Hampton’s reasons for wanting a new attorney. The Court of Appeals relied on United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, a United States Supreme Court opinion that held that when a defendant’s right to choice of counsel is erroneously denied, a defendant need not show prejudice in order to obtain relief.

Here, the WA Supreme Court overruled the WA Court of Appeals and upheld Mr. Hampton’s conviction. It reasoned that a trial court has wide latitude to grant or deny a motion to delay trial related to a defendant’s request to change counsel. In making such a decision, trial courts should consider the factual context for the motion, which can include among other factors-a defendant’s reasons for dissatisfaction with existing counsel.

In this case, reasoned the court, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hampton’s request to delay trial to allow him to replace his counsel given that (1) he did not make his request until the day his trial was scheduled to start, (2) his trial had already been continued once, (3) the victim/witness opposed the continuance, and (4) he did not explain his dissatisfaction with appointed counsel.

The WA Supreme Court also stated that trial courts can consider all relevant information, including the 11 factors described in the most recent edition of the LaFave Criminal Procedure treatise:

(1) whether the request came at a point sufficiently in advance of trial to permit the trial court to readily adjust its calendar;

(2) the length of the continuance requested;

(3) whether the continuance would carry the trial date beyond the period specified in the state speedy trial act;

(4) whether the court had granted previous continuances at the defendant’s request;

( 5) whether the continuance would seriously inconvenience the witnesses;

(6) whether the continuance request was made promptly after the defendant first became aware of the grounds advanced for discharging his or her counsel;

(7) whether the defendant’s own negligence placed him or her in a situation where he or she needed a continuance to obtain new counsel;

(8) whether the defendant had some legitimate cause for dissatisfaction with counsel, even though it fell short of likely incompetent representation;

(9) whether there was a “rational basis” for believing that the defendant was seeking to change counsel “primarily for the purpose of delay”;

(10) whether the current counsel was prepared to go to trial; and

( 11) whether denial of the motion was likely to result in identifiable prejudice to the defendant’s case of a material or substantial nature.

Based on that, and under the circumstances, the WA Supreme Court concluded that the trial court in this case did not error by considering the defendant’s reasons for dissatisfaction with his appointed attorney in addition to the other circumstances, such as the lateness of the request, the previous continuance granted by the court, and the victim/witness’s opposition to further delay.

Consequently, the WA Supremes reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it considered – among other factors – the defendant’s reasons for his dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel.

My opinion? Trial judges are very, very suspicious and pessimistic when defendants try withdrawing/replacing their defense attorney at the 11th hour before trial. Judges know that Prosecutors work hard – and they do – to bring witnesses together and prepare for trial. Judges also know want to avoid any witness tampering and/or intimidation on the part of defendants who may have mistakenly believed they could strike a BBD (bigger, better deal) right before trial.

That line of thinking on the part of defendants is not always true, in fact, it’s rarely true. Believe me, once a competent Prosecutor prepares a trial, they’re rarely convinced of going anywhere but forward with their prosecution.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Thompson: Disruptive Defendants In Trial

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, felony, Firearm, Jury Trial, Sixth Amendment, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Murder defendant to wear shock device | The Spokesman-Review

In State v. Thompson, the WA Court of Appeals Division II held that  a Defendant’s right to be present during trial is not violated if they are taken away after being verbally and/or physically disruptive and refuse to promise that such behavior will stop.

Here, late one evening, Thompson approached a group of high school students, two of whom were sitting in a car. Thompson pulled out a gun and ordered the students to surrender their possessions. Three of them handed over backpacks and other items, while the two girls in the car closed and locked the doors. After looking through the items, Thompson demanded the car. When one of the boys protested and tried to get the gun, Thompson shot him in the abdomen. The other boys wrestled Thompson to the ground and held him until the police arrived.

The State charged Thompson with four counts of Robbery in the First Degree while armed with a firearm and one count Assault First Degree while armed with a firearm, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree and Possession of a Stolen Firearm.

When Thompson’s trial began on January 28, 2014, he wore a leg restraint. Before testimony began, jail personnel asked for increased restraints due to a physical altercation at the jail. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court authorized the placement of a stun device under Thompson’s clothing.

Later that same day, Thompson pushed over the counsel table at which he was seated, yelled several profanities, and struggled with corrections officers before being subdued and removed from the courtroom. When he returned in handcuffs, shackles, and a belly chain, the trial court ruled that he would be taken to another courtroom where he could attend the trial over a video feed.

The trial court informed Thompson that he would have the right to be present in court if he assured the judge that his behavior would improve. Specifically, the judge said the following:

“And, of course, Mr. Thompson has the right to reclaim his ability to be present in court upon a real assurance that his conduct will improve and that he will not be verbally or physically disruptive.”

Before the trial recessed for the day, the trial court reminded Thompson that he could return to the courtroom the following day if he agreed to behave. Thompson was instructed to inform his attorney or corrections staff of his decision.

The next day, on February 4, trial resumed. Thompson had not decided whether he would behave in court. The judge said he would not further inquire into Thompson’s desire to return to the courtroom because Thompson knew the procedure by which he could return the day before and still refused to comply or reply. After the State rested, Thompson declined to testify, and the jury retired to deliberate at the end of the day.

On February 5, the jury found Thompson guilty as charged.

On appeal, Thompson raised the legal issue of whether the trial court denied his right to be present at trial by removing him from the courtroom for the final three days of trial without informing him daily that he could return if he conducted himself properly.

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court reasoned that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be present in the courtroom at all critical stages of the trial. Also, this right derives from the 6th Amendment’s constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses and the Washington rules of criminal procedure.

The Court also reasoned, however, that the right to be present is not absolute. A defendant’s persistent, disruptive conduct can constitute a voluntary waiver of the right to be present in the courtroom. Once lost, this right can be reclaimed “as soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.”

The Court of Appeals followed basic guidelines under State v. Chapple to assist trial courts in exercising their discretion in cases like this. First, the defendant must be warned that his conduct may lead to removal. Second, the defendant’s conduct must be severe enough to justify removal. Third, the trial court should employ the least severe alternative that will prevent the defendant from disrupting the trial. Fourth, the defendant must be allowed to reclaim his right to be present upon assurances that his or her conduct will improve. These guidelines, said the court, are intended to ensure that trial courts exercise their discretion in a manner that affords defendants a fair trial while maintaining the safety and decorum of the proceedings.

Here, the trial court clearly informed Thompson of both his right to return and the manner in which he could exercise that right. With that, the Court affirmed Thompson’s convictions.

My opinion? In my experience, trial judges are extremely sensitive to how defendants behave in court. Decorum MUST be maintained by witnesses, attorneys and defendants at all times. Any disruptions of proceedings are viewed disdainfully, as we see in this opinion.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.