State v. Ayala-Pineda
| Decision Date | 27 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 38050-5-III |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. SANTIAGO AYALA-PINEDA, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney's Office appeals a court order concluding that it willfully violated a discovery order in this matter and awarding attorney fees of $2,250 to Santiago Ayala-Pineda. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact, which support, in turn its conclusions of law. We affirm.
On December 10, 2019, relying on a lead that Kendra Ponce might have been involved in a drug-related shooting several hours earlier, Pasco police officers traveled to her last known address. On arrival, they saw Ms. Ponce driving away with Mr Ayala-Pineda and Ms. Ponce's four-year-old son in the car. Ms. Ponce did not yield to a traffic stop and a high-speed chase ensued that ended when her car crashed. Police later learned that Mr. Ayala-Pineda threw a backpack from the car during the chase. The backpack was located and police obtained a search warrant and searched it. It contained controlled substances and firearms. Mr Ayala-Pineda, a convicted felon, could not legally possess firearms.
Mr. Ayala-Pineda was charged with multiple counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Ms. Ponce was charged with attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle and reckless endangerment. In January 2020, the State moved to join Mr. Ayala-Pineda's case with that of Ms. Ponce.
The first omnibus hearing in Mr. Ayala-Pineda's case was held on January 28, 2020. The State's first witness list named 140 potential witnesses with their addresses.
In September 2020, the State filed an amended motion to join Mr. Ayala-Pineda's charges for trial, this time not only with the charges against Ms. Ponce but also with charges against Joshua Welch for the December 2019 shooting that had brought attention to Ms. Ponce in the first place. Mr. Welch was charged with attempted murder in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and firearm possession for the shooting.
In November 2020, the State filed its first amended witness list in Mr. Ayala-Pineda's case. Its list had grown to 223 witnesses, with many identified by name and address but others only identified by name alone. Neither the first list nor the amended list provided a summary of the anticipated testimony that would relate to Mr. Ayala-Pineda's charges.
Mr. Ayala-Pineda's lawyer asked to interview all 223 witnesses. She began by interviewing police officers from the Pasco Police Department in early December 2020. When interviewed, lead detective Jesse Romero indicated that most of the 223 witnesses identified were not related to Mr. Ayala-Pineda's case. He identified a number who were tied to the shooting. While the State viewed Mr. Welch's and Mr. Ayala-Pineda's cases as related and maintained that Mr. Ayala-Pineda might face future charges for the shooting, the shooting victim had identified Mr. Welch as the shooter, telling officers that Mr. Ayala-Pineda helped to arrange the drug deal during which the shooting occurred but was not involved with the shooting.
On December 15, 2020, Mr. Ayala-Pineda moved for sanctions against the State. He argued the witness list was not well-grounded in fact or warranted by law and was instead filed to bury the defense in needless discovery. He argued that the over-inclusive witness list was needlessly increasing the cost of litigation and causing unnecessary delays to trial. Defense counsel expressed her belief that only 27 of the 223 witnesses were possibly relevant to Mr. Ayala-Pineda's case and sought a witness list narrowed to persons the State actually intended to be called against Mr. Ayala-Pineda for the existing charges.
The State argued in response that it was complying with its obligation to provide all potential witnesses to the defense for all potential charges Mr. Ayala-Pineda might face.
The motion was heard by Judge Bruce Spanner on December 22, 2020. When asked by Judge Spanner, the prosecutor confirmed that he did not intend to call as witnesses at Mr. Ayala-Pineda's trial the witnesses to the homicide-the relevant standard for disclosure under CrR 4.7. The judge characterized the State as "clearly in violation of the Rule" and "imposing on [defense] counsel an unfathomable burden with 231 witnesses." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 5.[1] The judge added, "I know this comes out of the Franklin County Prosecutor's Office way too much, and it needs to stop." Id. He told the prosecutor he would order the State to "pare down your witness list to only those that you intend to call" by next Tuesday. Id. He elaborated:
Id. at 5-6. Judge Spanner then completed the following handwritten order:
The State shall pare down their witness list to those it actually intends to call at trial by Tuesday, December 29, 2020 and provide recorded statements for each witness again. If there is no recorded statements then the State shall provide a written summary of the witnesses oral statements. The State shall not simply refer to the police reports, but shall provide a written summary.
On the afternoon of December 29, the State filed a summary of the State's witnesses with the clerk of court. This time, the State identified only 44 witnesses and accompanied the list with a summary of the anticipated testimony, including excerpts from police reports or prior statements when necessary. It attached 155 pages of written discovery. Its certificate of service stated that "a copy of the foregoing was delivered to opposing counsel by placing it in Judicial Express Delivery, LLC, this 29 day of December, 2020." CP at 180.
On December 30, Mr. Ayala-Pineda moved for an order of contempt and renewed his request for sanctions, supported by an affidavit of defense counsel stating she had not received any of the production court ordered by Judge Spanner. Her explanation of her steps taken to confirm that nothing was received stated in part, "I called Judicial Express on December 29, 2020, at approximately 4:40 p.m. and verified they did not have any documents, thumb drives, [compact disks (CD's)/digital versatile disks (DVD's)] or anything from the State to me on this case." CP at 338.
In response, the State took the position that it complied with Judge Spanner's order by filing and delivering the summaries with supporting documents to Judicial Express. It stated that it had provided CDs, DVDs, thumb drives, and Axon evidence[2]related to this case to the defense long before the December 22 hearing, listing its dates of its production.
In a supplemental affidavit, defense counsel stated that she received the summary of State's witnesses with attachments on December 31, 2020, and that "Judicial Express indicated that the above-mentioned documents were not available for pick up on December 29" but "were available for pick-up on December 30." CP at 376. She explained that since her office was closed, she arranged to obtain the materials on December 31.
Unsatisfied that Mr. Ayala-Pineda's submissions were sufficient for the court to determine whether a violation occurred, Judge Spanner recommended that Mr. Ayala-Pineda refile his motion with more complete support.
Mr. Ayala-Pineda's refiled motion was heard by Judge Jacqueline Shea-Brown. After hearing argument of counsel, delivering an initial ruling, and entertaining exceptions, Judge Shea-Brown granted the motion. She ordered further production by the State and awarded Mr. Ayala-Pineda $2,250 in attorney fees, reflecting defense counsel's work performed since December 22. The State appeals.
The State assigns error to three of the trial court's findings of fact and four of its conclusions of law. We review findings of fact under a substantial evidence standard. Mitchell v. Wash. State Inst. of Pub Pol'y, 153 Wn.App. 803, 814, 225 P.3d 280 (2009) (quoting Pardee v. Jolly, 163 Wn.2d 558, 566, 182 P.3d 967 (2008)). "Substantial evidence is evidence that would persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the statement asserted." Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County, 131 Wn.App. 756, 768, 129 P.3d 300 (2006). We review de novo questions of law and a trial court's conclusions of law. Sunnyside Valley Irrig. Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873, 880, 73 P.3d 369 (2003).
We address the challenged findings of fact and conclusions of law in turn.
To continue reading
Request your trial