In re Sanchez
Decision Date | 26 January 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 32633-1-III,32633-1-III |
Citation | 197 Wash.App. 686,391 P.3d 517 |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | IN RE the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Jose Luis SANCHEZ, Jr. |
Susan F. Wilk, Office of the Federal Public Defender, 101 S.W. Main St., Ste. 1700, Portland, OR, 97204-3225, for Petitioner.
David Brian Trefry, Yakima County Prosecutor's Office, P.O. Box 4846, Spokane, WA, 99220-0846, Joseph Anthony Brusic, Yakima County Prosecutor's Office, 128 N. 2nd St., Rm. 329, Yakima, WA, 98901-2621, for Respondent.
Lawrence-Berrey, J.¶1 Jose Luis Sanchez, Jr., seeks relief from personal restraint imposed for his 2008 Yakima County convictions of two counts of aggravated first degree murder and other felony crimes. The convictions stem from his participation in a February 20, 2005 home invasion robbery and execution-style shootings at the apartment of Ricky Causor and Michelle Kublic. The shootings killed Causor and the couple's 3-year-old daughter and wounded
Kublic and their 18-month-old daughter. At trial, Kublic positively identified Sanchez as the shooter, as did Sanchez's codefendant Mario Mendez who previously pleaded guilty and testified for the State. Sanchez filed a direct appeal and this court affirmed the judgment and sentence. State v . Sanchez, 171 Wash.App. 518, 288 P.3d 351 (2012), review denied , 177 Wash.2d 1024, 309 P.3d 504 (2013).
¶2 In this timely filed personal restraint petition (PRP), Sanchez contends he is entitled to a new trial on grounds that (1) he was denied his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution during a critical stage when he was arraigned without counsel, and (2) in the alternative, his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to appear and object to his being filmed by media at his arraignment proceeding. We disagree with his contentions and dismiss his PRP.
FACTS
¶3 Police arrested Sanchez on February 23, 2005, after acting on anonymous telephone tips that he was responsible for the Causor murders. The next day, he appeared for a single court hearing on two matters: (1) arraignment on an outstanding 2004 matter charging him with certain felonies, and (2) a preliminary appearance in the current murder case. The prosecutor was present but no attorney appeared for Sanchez. First addressing the 2004 matter, the court advised Sanchez of his rights, which he acknowledged he understood before requesting that the court appoint counsel. The prosecutor interjected that an attorney had already been appointed on the 2004 matter, but that Yakima County public defender/director of assigned counsel, Daniel Fessler, was requesting that the court appoint him on both matters. The court did so. The court then explained to Sanchez that he was being held under investigation on suspicion for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, first degree robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm. Based on a police probable cause declaration showing that acquaintances of Sanchez had implicated him in the robbery and murders, the court found probable cause to believe Sanchez committed one or more crimes. The probable cause declaration also stated that Pers. Restraint Pet., App. C, Decl. of Probable Cause at 6. The court set Sanchez's bail at $5 million and scheduled his arraignment for February 28.
¶4 On February 28, 2005, the State formally charged Sanchez and Mendez (who still remained at large) with seven crimes including two counts of aggravated first degree murder, which carried a possible death penalty. That day, Sanchez and an unknown number of other defendants appeared in superior court for a group arraignment hearing. The court explained their rights and noted that each "has a lawyer appointed to represent you or you might have hired a private attorney." Pers. Restraint Pet., App. B, Report of Proceedings (RP) (Feb. 28, 2005) at 2-3. The court then explained the process for the arraignment hearing:
Pers. Restraint Pet., App. B, RP (Feb. 28, 2005) at 3-4.
¶5 The court then called Sanchez's case. The court's prior explanation of rights to the defendants included the right to counsel, but did not specify any right to have counsel present during the current hearing. No attorney appeared for Sanchez. The prosecutor recited the seven charges and gave Sanchez a copy of the information. Sanchez acknowledged to the court that he understood the charges, and he declined a full reading of the information. He said he had no questions about the rights previously explained to him. The court entered an order setting dates for the omnibus hearing and trial. Sanchez signed the order and received a copy.
¶6 No one broached the subject of entering a plea during the arraignment. The court apparently entered summary not guilty pleas for Sanchez. No concerns regarding the arraignment procedure were ever voiced during the remainder of the pretrial and trial proceedings.
¶7 The case was high profile in the community and had already generated considerable media coverage. In his declaration filed with this petition, Sanchez states he appeared at the arraignment without counsel and in jail clothes and shackles. He states "there were lots of news media people and cameras," and he "observed people photographing my face and filming the proceedings when I was in court that day." Pers. Restraint Pet., App. D at 2. He states he did not want to be filmed but did not know there was any way to prevent this from happening. The report of proceedings for the arraignment hearing is silent as to the presence of media.
¶8 Meanwhile, Michelle Kublic had remained hospitalized for multiple gunshot wounds
until she was released to her father's home on February 26. The following facts quoted from the direct appeal opinion detail Kublic's various initial descriptions of the perpetrators while in the hospital and shortly after her hospital release:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Heng
...was not a critical stage of trial such that counsel's absence therefrom requires automatic reversal. Cf. In re Pers. Restraint of Sanchez, 197 Wash. App. 686, 702, 391 P.3d 517 (2017) (arraignment not a critical stage of trial where petitioner made no showing "that any right or defense he p......
-
State v. Winborne
...92 L.Ed. 2d 460 (1986). For this reason, structural errors are not subject to harmless error analysis. In re Personal Restraint of Sanchez, 197 Wash. App. 686, 699, 391 P.3d 517, review denied, 189 Wash.2d 1023, 408 P.3d 1089 (2017). A structural error "resists" a harmless error analysis be......
-
State v. Charlton
...to be represented by counsel is a fundamental component of our criminal justice system.’ " In re Pers. Restraint of Sanchez , 197 Wash. App. 686, 698, 391 P.3d 517 (2017) (quoting United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648, 653, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984) ). ¶ 26 Attachment of the......
-
State v. Carmona-Cruz, 81546-6-I
...the type of 11 hearing, to assess the possibility of prejudice to the defendant. In re Pers. Restraint of Sanchez, 197 Wn.App. 686, 703, 391 P.3d 517 (2017). Only where "the deprivation of the right to counsel affected-and contaminated-the entire criminal proceeding" do we forego a harmless......
-
Malicious Prosecution as Undue Process: A Fourteenth Amendment Theory of Malicious Prosecution
...to “include arraignments, postindictment interrogations, postindictment lineups, and the entry of a guilty plea”); In re Sanchez, 391 P.3d 517, 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017) (identifying the period from arraignment to trial as the most critical period of criminal proceedings for the accused). 3......