State v. Denton

Decision Date30 August 2022
Docket Number37497-1-III
PartiesSTATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. BRADLEY KENNETH DENTON, Appellant.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals
OPINION

SIDDOWAY, C.J.

Beginning shortly after the adoption of CrR 3.3 and continuing through iterations of the rule thereafter, published decisions have held that court congestion and routine backlogs at the Washington State Patrol (WSP) Crime Laboratory do not justify continuing a defendant's time for trial beyond the period provided by the rule. Unique circumstances have been held to support such continuances when supported by a detailed explanation of the congestion, efforts made to get around it and a projection of the delay.

Over Bradley Denton's objections, the trial court granted two continuances that extended his trial date four and a half months beyond the time-for-trial period provided by CrR 3.3. It did so on the basis of the prosecutor's representation that a nine-month turnaround by the crime lab was to be expected and was a "best case scenario," and his argument that the shorter time frame contemplated by CrR 3.3 is merely "aspirational."

The CrR 3.3 time limits are not merely aspirational. Presented with a record in which the sole basis for the two continuances was routine crime lab delay, we are left with no choice but to reverse Mr. Denton's convictions and direct the superior court to dismiss the charges with prejudice. We deplore this outcome given the violent nature of Mr. Denton's crimes but it is the strict remedy that drafters of the rule perceived as needed to ensure that criminal cases will be promptly prepared for trial and heard.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Felicia Denton divorced the defendant, Bradley Denton, in 2012. The couple later reconciled but Mr. Denton resumed using drugs-in particular, methamphetamine-and Felicia[1] ended the relationship for good after about a year. When Mr. Denton persisted in contacting her, Felicia obtained an order for protection against him in April 2018.

That fall, Felicia, who had moved to Tumwater, returned to Yakima for a family gathering. Mr. Denton was aware she was in town. On the morning after the family gathering, October 7, 2018, Mr. Denton arrived uninvited at the home where Ms. Denton and other family members were staying. The Dentons' two children and Felicia's sister were in the living room; Felicia's sister was sleeping, but the children were awake. Felicia's brother and family lived in the basement and might have been present when Mr. Denton arrived.

After being let in, Mr. Denton went directly to the room where Felicia had been sleeping, entered, and locked the door behind him. He angrily questioned her about who she had been with and where she had been the prior evening and then became violent. He slapped her several times and then started choking her. Felicia later testified at Mr. Denton's trial that as he was doing this, "He-kept telling me that I was going to listen to everything that he said, I was going to do everything that he said." 1 Report of Proceeding (RP) at 436.[2] She testified that frightened, she "kept saying, 'Okay.'" 1 RP at 439. Mr Denton told her that she and their children "were not going back to Tumwater, we were going to stay here, we were going to be a family." 1 RP at 437.

Mr. Denton then took off his clothing and pulled off the pants Felicia was wearing, at which point Felicia claims she was crying uncontrollably. As she told him to stop and not to hurt her, he got on top of her and raped her. Felicia did not call out for help or fight him, other than to grab his arm when he was choking her. She ended that resistance when he told her to "not fucking touch him." 1 RP at 443-44.

Immediately after Mr. Denton left, Felicia drove back to Tumwater with her children, despite having had plans to spend the afternoon with family in Yakima. She reported the assault to the Tumwater Police Department on October 9. An officer took a recorded statement, arranged for Felicia to undergo a sexual assault examination, picked up the clothing Felicia had been wearing when assaulted, and then referred the matter to the Yakima Police Department.

About a week later, Mr. Denton, who had been arrested for unrelated reasons and was incarcerated in the Yakima County Jail, placed a phone call to Felicia. She did not accept the first call, but after speaking with a Yakima police detective, she accepted three calls from Mr. Denton on October 17 and a fourth call on October 19.

On October 26, Mr. Denton was charged with assault in violation of a protection order, second degree rape, and two counts of misdemeanor violation of a protection order-one count for October 17, and one for October 19. All were charged as domestic violence offenses. Mr. Denton was arraigned on November 7, 2018, with trial set for December 31.

December 27, 2018-Omnibus hearing and first continuance

The omnibus hearing had been set for December 20, 2018, but was continued to December 27 because Mr. Denton's court-appointed lawyer was in the hospital. His lawyer remained unable to attend on the 27th, so Mr. Denton was represented by stand-in counsel.

At the December 27 hearing, the prosecutor asked that trial be continued, explaining that "the state is waiting on additional follow-up, including the results of a sexual assault nursing examination report along with the laboratory examination on clothing, which is-DNA,[3] some other supplemental discovery out of Harrison County is what we're waiting on right now." 1 RP at 6. He represented that items had been sent to the crime lab at around the time of the November 7 arraignment. He asked that an omnibus hearing be set for January 23, "at which point . . . we'll have a better idea of where we are with respect to the follow-up discovery, with a trial date about a month out on 2/25." 1 RP at 7.

Stand-in counsel was unable to address any prejudice to Mr. Denton from a continuance, stating, "I know nothing about the case, your Honor." 1 RP at 8. When Mr. Denton was addressed directly, he said he was contesting the continuance and did not want to waive his speedy trial right. After hearing from the parties, the trial court granted the continuance over Mr. Denton's objection.

The prosecutor had expressed concern about the health problems affecting Mr. Denton's court-appointed lawyer, so the court set a status conference for the following week to hear more about the lawyer's condition.

January 3, 2019-Status conference and disqualification of counsel

On January 3, 2019, the court heard a motion filed by appointed counsel (who was absent) asking to be disqualified for health reasons. Mr. Denton was represented by stand-in counsel. The following exchange occurred:

THE COURT: . . . Mr. Denton, you've discussed the disqualification of [your appointed attorney]?
MR. DENTON: Yeah. Yes.
THE COURT: Any objection to that?
MR. DENTON: I prefer not be-waive my speedy rights but I don't have an option, right?
THE COURT: Well, you can continue to wait for [your lawyer's] recovery; but I don't know that that's in your best interest. ....
MR. DENTON: We can go with it. It resets the sixty days, right?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DENTON: Yeah
THE COURT: It'll reset it effective today.
[PROSECUTOR]: Like I said, the sooner you do it- ....
-if you wait two weeks and he still can't come back then you're gonna have to-they're going to disqualify him then and then you'll be sixty days from then.
MR. DENTON: -Okay.
[PROSECUTOR]: So, get her done soon. Rip the band aid off.
MR. DENTON: Mmm hmm. [Affirmative]. Alright. No problem.
THE COURT: Mr. Denton, I've signed the order and [the prosecutor] will move heaven and earth to try to get you an attorney here soon.

3 RP at 4-5 (last alteration in original).

January 29, 2019-Omnibus hearing and further continuance

At an omnibus hearing on January 29, 2019, Mr. Denton's newly appointed lawyer reported that the State had filed an amended information whose reading would be waived, and he asked that Mr. Denton's pleas of not guilty be entered. The amended information separately charged Mr. Denton's three phone calls on October 17 as misdemeanor violations of the protection order, bringing the total misdemeanor violations charged to four.

Asked by the court if there was an omnibus order, the prosecutor said there was not. Reminding the court that evidence had been sent to the state crime lab in early November, the prosecutor explained:

Based on my experience and what I've been told by other attorneys in my unit, generally for rape kits involving DNA analysis get back-you know, best case scenario is somewhere around nine months. Potentially (inaudible) but right now that's-that's kind of [the] time line we're looking at.
So, whatever the results of those tests may be could be dispositive on what type of defense [Mr. Denton] chooses to assert at trial.
So, I don't think either [defense counsel] or I would be prepared to enter an omnibus order at this stage.

2 RP at 5. He asked the court to continue trial on this basis.

Defense counsel told the court, "Mr. Denton would like to get this case over with and therefore he is objecting to continuance," and "I can certainly try this case without the DNA." 2 RP at 6-7. The court asked if the State could try the case without the DNA, and the prosecutor answered, "No." 2 RP at 7. The court observed that if Mr. Denton defended on the basis that there was sex, but it was consensual, the DNA evidence would be cumulative, but if he contested that sex occurred, "that DNA evidence is potentially- paramount to the state's case." Id. Asked if Mr. Denton had settled on a defense, his lawyer answered that it was presently a general denial.

The court continued trial to June 17 over Mr....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT