State v. Christensen
Decision Date | 09 January 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 49764-6-II,49764-6-II |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. CHAD ERNEST CHRISTENSEN, Appellant. |
WORSWICK, J. — Chad Ernest Christensen appeals from the trial court's denial of his CrR 7.8(b)(5) motion for relief from the judgment and sentence imposed following his conviction of first degree child molestation. Christensen's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on review. We grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
In 2012, Christensen was convicted of first degree child molestation following a jury trial. We affirmed Christensen's conviction on direct appeal. State v. Christensen, noted at 181 Wn. App. 1002 (2014) (unpublished).
In 2015, Christensen filed a CrR 7.8(b)(5) motion for relief from his judgment and sentence. Christensen argued in his motion that (1) his public trial right was violated when either the bailiff or trial counsel asked Christensen's father, Chip Christensen, to give up his seat in the courtroom to make room for potential jurors, and (2) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the courtroom closure. Christensen attached to his CrR 7.8 motion a sworn declaration from his father, which stated in relevant part:
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 104-05.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and took testimony regarding the alleged closure. Following the hearing, the trial court dismissed Christensen's CrR 7.8(b)(5) motion and later entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which stated in relevant part:
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CP at 344-45. Christensen appeals from the order denying his CrR 7.8 motion.
State v. Hairston, 133 Wn.2d 534, 538, 946 P.2d 397 (1997) (alteration in original) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). This procedure has been followed. Christensen's counsel on appealfiled a brief with the withdrawal motion. Christensen was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review.
The material facts are accurately set forth in counsel's brief in support of the motion to withdraw. We have reviewed the briefs filed in this court and have independently reviewed the entire record. We specifically considered the following potential issues raised by counsel:
Motion to Withdraw at 3.
We generally review a trial court's denial of a CrR 7.8 motion to vacate a conviction for an abuse of discretion. State v. Scott, 150 Wn. App. 281, 290, 207 P.3d 495 (2009). Where a trial court weighs evidence following a CrR 7.8 hearing, we review its findings of fact for substantial evidence and its conclusions of law de novo. State v. Schwab, 141 Wn. App. 85, 91, 167 P.3d 1225 (2007). Upon our independent review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports each of the trial court's findings of fact.
Regarding the first potential issue raised by counsel, there is no good faith argument that the trial court erred by concluding Christensen failed to show that a courtroom closure had occurred. To succeed in his public trial violation claim, Christensen carried the burden of showing that a courtroom closure had occurred. State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598, 605, 354 P.3d841 (2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1524 (2016). "A closure . . . occurs when the public is excluded from particular proceedings within a courtroom." State v. Anderson, 187 Wn. App. 706, 712, 350 P.3d 255 (citing State v. Gomez, 183 Wn.2d 29, 33-34, 347 P.3d 876 (2015); State v. Lormor, 172 Wn.2d 85, 92, 257 P.3d 624 (2011)...
To continue reading
Request your trial