Silva v. Holbrook

• Decision Date: 23 September 2022
• Docket Number: C22-282-LK-MLP
• Parties: RAMON SAUL SILVA, Petitioner, v. DONALD R. HOLBROOK, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

RAMON SAUL SILVA, Petitioner, v. DONALD R. HOLBROOK, Respondent.

No. C22-282-LK-MLP

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

September 23, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MICHELLE L. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

Petitioner Ramon Silva is a state prisoner who is currently confined at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla, Washington. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his 2018 King County Superior Court judgment and sentence. (Pet. (dkt. # 4).) Respondent filed an answer to the petition and submitted relevant portions of the state court record. (Answer (dkt. # 13); State Court Rec. (dkt. ## 14, 14-1).) Petitioner filed a response to Respondent's answer (Pet.'s Resp. (dkt. # 15)).

This Court, having reviewed the petition, all briefing of the parties, and the balance of the record, concludes that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied and this action should be dismissed with prejudice.

II. FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Washington Court of Appeals, on direct appeal, summarized the facts underlying Petitioner's convictions as follows:

Silva was arrested and charged with second degree DV assault, and fourth degree DV assault. According to the charging documents, the second degree assault charge arose from an incident on January 2, 2018, when Silva accused his live-in girlfriend, Victoria Martinez, of cheating on him. Martinez stated that Silva bent her fingers and strangled her. The fourth degree assault charge arose from an incident on February 18, 2018, when Silva woke Martinez up and told her that he was having a mental breakdown. Martinez called 911 and reported that Silva had strangled her, and poked her in the eye after ranting, making no sense, and instructing her “don't look at me with those eyes.” King County Sherriff Officers Tim MacDonald and Nathan Obregon responded. Martinez reported to the officers that Silva is schizophrenic, but he was not taking his medication and he was using marijuana, which aggravated his delusions. Martinez reported that Silva was talking about aliens and mind control. Deputy MacDonald observed Silva speaking about these issues and having an “obvious” mental health crisis.

On August 1, 2018, Silva's appointed counsel moved to withdraw due to a conflict of interest that arose after the State disclosed its list of possible witnesses. Counsel also informed the trial court that Silva wished to proceed pro se. The trial court granted defense counsel's motion to withdraw, and denied Silva's motion without prejudice, stating that it wanted to give Silva the opportunity to discuss representing himself with new counsel.

On August 3, 2018, Silva appeared in front of a new trial court judge for a hearing on his motion to proceed pro se. A new public defender was assigned to Silva that morning. Counsel moved to continue the trial and confirmed Silva wished to proceed pro se. The court asked Silva whether he previously represented himself and whether he had studied law. Silva responded that he had studied law as an inmate. He stated he was familiar with the rules of evidence and jury instructions, and that he was planning to waive a jury trial and proceed to a bench trial. The prosecutor raised a concern about whether Silva could “constitutionally proceed based on mental capacity.” The court responded “you can be incompetent and proceed pro se. There's U.S. Supreme Court law on that . . . So I'm going to let him proceed pro se. He wants to represent himself, he's entitled to do that.” After a break in proceedings, Silva asked for standby counsel, which the court denied. Silva then asked the court if the prosecutor had raised a competency issue. The court responded, “I'm not here to discuss competency. We're just talking about you proceeding representing yourself.”

The hearing resumed later that same day with another new trial court judge presiding. Silva remarked on the change of judge, saying “I'm just making sure I didn't wake up.” Due to the confusion of where the prior judge had left off, the new judge restarted proceedings from the beginning. When the court asked why Silva thought he could represent himself, Silva responded “I have a good understanding of the Criminal Rules and Procedure and with pro se status, I'll be able to utilize the WestLaw Legal Research station in the jail.” He confirmed that even though he wanted standby counsel, he would still opt to proceed pro se if he was not granted standby counsel. After questioning Silva further about his knowledge of the legal system, the court found that he was making a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. The court found that because there was no reason to doubt Silva's competency, the court would allow him to represent himself.

Silva then stated:

I would just like to mention for the record that I'm being held in a psychiatric ward past the 72-hour observation period and nobody has spoken to me or anything. And earlier with the other Judge that was up here, the Prosecutor mentioned something about incompetency and when I brought it up, nobody wanted to speak about it.

So I don't know what you can do about this, but this jail has me being-they're violating RCW 10.99 by even holding me past the 72-hour observation period with any type of anything. They haven't come spoken to me, they don't do anything. They haven't- they're not even feeding me food or giving me showers.

The court responded[,] “so if you have issues about what's going on in the jail, that is not something I can address.” The court then signed Silva's waiver of counsel.

Although Silva initially stated an intention to plead guilty, on October 5, 2018, he indicated that he wanted to proceed to a bench trial. Trial began on October 17, 2018. The State presented trial testimony from Martinez, the responding Deputies MacDonald and Obregon, and Detective Eric White. The State also offered the 911 calls made by Silva and Martinez during the February 18 incident. Silva did not present evidence in his defense.

MacDonald testified that when he responded to the call, Silva “seemed to be having some sort of a mental health crisis. He was talking about mind control, aliens, people talking to him, and was just very strange.” Obregon testified that based on his training as a psychotherapist, he was concerned that Silva might be experiencing dissociation.

Martinez testified that Silva had mental health issues, and that he stopped his treatment and was using marijuana, which made his paranoia worse. She said he frequently talked about CIA agents and being recorded. In the 911 call, Martinez said that Silva was describing himself as having a psychotic break at the time of the incident and that he was constantly talking about being an alien and a reptile.

Silva's defense was to challenge Martinez's credibility and motives. The court found Martinez was a credible witness and that Silva suffered from mental illness. The court found Silva guilty of both charges. At sentencing, Silva was irate and he made death threats, swore, and ranted. He demanded standby counsel before the court signed the judgment and sentence. At a second sentencing hearing a week later, Silva had appointed standby counsel.

(State Court Rec. (dkt. # 14-1), Ex. 7 at 1-5.)

Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Washington Court of Appeals, and on April 20, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion affirming the convictions. (See State Court Rec., Exs. 3-7.) Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for review in the Washington Supreme Court. (Id., Ex. 10.) Petitioner identified therein the following seven issues for review:

1. After the State raised a concern about Silva's competency, did the trial court then err by failing to order an evaluation and refusing to consider competency meaningfully?

2. Did the trial court err in hearing and granting Silva's motion to proceed pro se and in finding his waiver of counsel “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary,” before making an ill-informed determination as to Silva's competency?

3. In considering Silva's pro se request, did the trial court make a factual err in concluding there was “no reason” to think Silva was not competent despite the prosecutor's request and the probable cause statement available to the court?

4. Similarly, did the trial court make a procedural error by noting Silva was “coming across as competent” despite the court's previous denial of the opportunity for the parties to discuss competency?

5. Did the trial court make a legal error by misapplying the appropriate legal standard by finding Silva's intellect sufficient without considering his ability to comprehend the nature of the proceedings?

6. Did defense counsel violate Silva's right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the trial court's consideration of the motion to proceed pro se and asserting he believed the waiver of counsel was “knowing and intelligent” without any competency evaluation or meaningful hearing on the matter?

7. Did the trial court further compound the error by failing to order a competency evaluation or hearing after the following occurred? after Silva asked whether he had woken up, and twice raised competency concerns during the hearing on the motion to proceed pro se? after trial witnesses raised concerns about Silva's mental health and ability to maintain a grasp on reality? after Silva ranted during sentencing that he knew he was in a “simulation,” the judge was “shimmering,” and he knew this was not reality?

(Id., Ex. 10 at 2-3.) The Supreme Court denied review without comment on December 2, 2020, and the Court of Appeals issued a mandate terminating direct review on ...