State v. Schaller
| Decision Date | 03 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 57827-8-I.,57827-8-I. |
| Citation | 177 P.3d 1139,143 Wn. App. 258 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Dean SCHALLER, Appellant. |
Todd Maybrown, Maria F. Torres, McNeil Island Correction Ctr., Steilacoom, WA, for Appellant.
Brian M. McDonald, King County Prosecutors Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Multiple requests to dismiss assigned counsel, without more, does not justify substitution of new counsel. To warrant substitution, good cause such as a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and the defendant must be shown. The decision on whether to substitute counsel is within the discretion of the trial court. Here, the inquiries conducted by the court were sufficiently thorough, and the record does not show that the alleged complete breakdown in communication or conflict between counsel and client affected the quality of representation Jeffrey Schaller received. We affirm.
¶ 2 D'Lene Ruth resided with the victim, David Bernfield. In order to earn extra money, Ruth supplied Jeffrey Schaller with cocaine several times a week. Schaller would call Ruth, arrange to pick her up and then drive around to give her money to purchase the drugs. Ruth would then purchase the drugs and deliver them to. Schaller.
¶ 3 On March 5, 2004, Schaller called Ruth asking for drugs. Ruth told Schaller to call back later. Soon thereafter, Schaller arrived at Ruth's door. Ruth saw Schaller holding a gun as he pushed his way into the house. Ruth shouted to Bernfield who was still in bed. Bernfield confronted Schaller and pushed him outside the house. Ruth heard a single gunshot and saw Bernfield stumble back into the house clutching his chest. Ruth saw Schaller drive off in his car. Bernfield later died from his wounds.
¶ 4 A police SWAT team arrested Schaller at his residence and found two knives and a magazine clip for a .380 automatic. After being advised of his Miranda1 warnings, Schaller stated that "[he] was assaulted, fell down, [and] the gun went off." The gun matching the caliber of the bullet in the victim was recovered from under Schaller's pillow. Schaller was charged with second degree murder. Shortly after his arrest on March 5, 2004, Schaller was assigned attorney Charles DeBruler. DeBruler withdrew on May 3, 2004, and Schaller was then represented by David Hammerstad and Douglas McCrae. By April 2005, Leo Hamaji replaced McCrae as the second attorney on the case. Attorneys Hammerstad and Hamaji represented Schaller throughout the trial.
¶ 5 Schaller's competency was questioned and he was ordered committed for evaluation on May 12, 2004. Dr. Steven Marquez of Western State Hospital found Schaller to be suffering from drug induced delusion, but nonetheless competent to stand trial. A competency hearing before Judge Julie Spector was held on October 21, 2004. During this hearing Schaller testified that there was a covert operation by the police against him. He described seeing a black man dressed in camouflage, hiding in a tree, and hearing sirens signaling the authorities were coming to pick up the man. Schaller's testimony in essence was that the government's conspiracy against him caused him to experience certain symptoms rather than his use of methamphetamine.
¶ 6 While Schaller was testifying regarding the conspiracy, the court interrupted with its own question to determine if Schaller understood why they were in court that day. In response, Schaller testified that he was at this particular hearing to prove that he was able to help his counsel defend him. He described the role of his attorney as someone that gets him the best deal or defends his position. Shaller further contended that he was capable of achieving such a result providing the attorneys explain how they are proceeding. Schaller noted that the prosecutor's job was to see that justice was done. Schaller further characterized the judge's role as that of a referee.
¶ 7 Judge Spector specifically asked whether Schaller had any problems communicating with his counsel. Schaller responded no and further stated that his counsel had been able to explain what was going on. Questioning from the prosecutor also elicited the fact that he trusted his counsel. Here, Schaller expressed that the shooting was an accident. Schaller finally asserted that he could assist counsel quite well.
¶ 8 On redirect, Schaller admitted that he had some doubts about whether the victim was actually dead because he had seen Bernfield run back into the house. Schaller also asserted that he did not want the jury to know about his conspiracy theory because it sounded ludicrous.
¶ 9 Dr. Marquez recounted Schaller's delusion of believing there was a governmental conspiracy against him to prevent him from spreading the truth about methamphetamine and its abilities to provide telekinetic and clairvoyant abilities to the user. Dr. Michael Dixon, a private clinical psychologist, testified that Schaller's delusions might cross over into his perception of the reality of his current legal situation. Dr. Dixon testified that Schaller believed the seriousness of the charges against him to be between 8 or 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. Dr. Dixon further testified that Schaller conceptually recognized what he was charged with and what the potential sentencing range was.
¶ 10 After Schaller was determined to be competent, the parties discussed a continuance that would result in an extension of Schaller's right to a speedy trial. Judge Spector directly questioned Schaller about his understanding of the fact that he was found competent and asked if he was in agreement with the continuance. Schaller responded, "I'd rather not, but yes I defer to my attorney."
¶ 11 Five months later, on March 4, 2005, Schaller moved to fire his attorneys. McCrae was being reassigned and Hammerstad was on vacation so neither defense attorney was present at this hearing. Schaller was represented by' Judy Baskin. Schaller expressed his concerns to Judge Ronald Kessler regarding his lack of access to discovery and the failure of his attorneys to subpoena a recorded conversation. Schaller accused his attorneys of lying about obtaining the discovery documents and then failing to do so. The judge found no evidence that Schaller's attorneys had lied to him and further that Schaller was not entitled to the documents on the basis of the court rule then in effect.2
¶ 12 On March 21, 2005, defense counsel requested a continuance from Judge Kessler so that an expert witness would have time to conduct an examination which would support Schaller's defense of accidental shooting. At that time Hammerstad informed the court that Schaller objected to the continuance and further that Schaller still wished to fire his attorneys. Schaller addressed the court directly again complaining that he had not received the discovery material he wanted, in particular a police recorded conversation. Hammerstad interjected that there was nothing in discovery which indicated that the conversation Schaller referred to had been recorded. Because Schaller was having difficulty framing his issues and Hammerstad had another trial, the court granted the originally requested continuance while at the same time allowing Schaller to raise the issue at a later time if he still needed to do so. Although couched in different terms, this request was similar to the complaint Schaller raised previously.
¶ 13 On May 12, 2005, Hammerstad requested a competency hearing because defense counsel felt Schaller was no longer able to mentally compartmentalize his thoughts between his delusions and the case at hand. Schaller was vehemently contending that the person he was accused of killing was not dead. Schaller argued that he had already been found competent and he wanted to address his concerns and his grievances against his counsel. The trial court required Schaller to undergo another psychiatric evaluation; but ruled that Schaller's motion to dismiss his attorneys would be addressed if he were deemed competent.
¶ 14 A competency hearing was held on August 23, 2005, and the court found Schaller competent. Schaller again moved to fire his attorneys. This time the root of his motion was because Schaller had told. Hammerstad not to tell his ex-wife anything about the criminal case and that Hammerstad had violated the law by informing her of the fact that he was at Western State Hospital. In fact, Schaller's ex-wife had been contacted and interviewed by Dr. Martinez in the first psychiatric evaluation of Schaller.
¶ 15 On September 16, 2006, at an omnibus hearing before Judge Kessler, the court gave Schaller another opportunity to address his representation. At this time Schaller contended that his attorneys had requested him to perjure himself.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...527 U.S. at 282, 119 S.Ct. 1936 ).90 State v. Thompson, 169 Wash. App. 436, 457, 290 P.3d 996 (2012) (quoting State v. Schaller, 143 Wash. App. 258, 267-68, 177 P.3d 1139 (2007) ).91 Id. at 457, 290 P.3d 996 (quoting Schaller, 143 Wash. App. at 268, 177 P.3d 1139 ).92 Id. at 459, 290 P.3d 9......
-
State v. Thompson
...42.Id. at 67. 43. Thompson makes no claim that the numerous orders removing him from the courtroom were unnecessary or in any way improper. 44.State v. Schaller, 143 Wash.App. 258, 267, 177 P.3d 1139 (2007). 45.Id. at 267–68, 177 P.3d 1139. 46.State v. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d 668, 734, 940 P.2......
-
State v. Walker
..."[A] defendant does not have an absolute right under the Sixth Amendment to his choice of a particular advocate." State v. Schaller, 143 Wn. App. 258, 267, 177 P.3d 1139 (2007). "To justify appointment of new counsel, a defendant 'must show good cause to warrant substitution of counsel, suc......
-
State v. Pry
...allowing the defendant and counsel to express their concerns fully"; this process need not be a formal inquiry. State v. Schaller, 143 Wn. App. 258, 271, 177 P.3d 1139 (2007). The defendant must state the reasons for his dissatisfaction with counsel and the record on appeal should show that......