State v. Halls

• Decision Date: 24 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. 31244-5-III,31244-5-III
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent v. DAVID WAYNE HALLS, Appellant.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent v. DAVID WAYNE HALLS, Appellant.

No. 31244-5-III

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

FILED: July 24, 2014

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

BROWN, J.— David W. Halls appeals his second degree assault — domestic violence conviction.He contends his conviction lacks sufficient supporting evidence because the State failed to prove he intentionally meant to harm his girl friend.He further contends the trial court erred in accepting his jury waiver, allowing him to represent himself at trial, and in failing to conduct a competency hearing.Finally, Mr. Halls contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel.We reject Mr. Halls' contested contentions and find no merit in his pro se statement of additional grounds for review (SAG).But considering RCW 9.94A.701, we accept the State's error concession regarding the trial court's error in sentencing Mr. Halls to a variable term of community custody.SeeState v. Franklin, 172 Wn.2d 831, 836, 263 P.3d 585(2011)("a court may no longer sentence an offender to a variable term of community custody [that is] contingent on the amount of earned release but instead, it must determine the preciselength of community custody at the time of sentencing.").Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Halls' conviction and remand for the limited purpose of correcting his judgment and sentence to remove the offending community custody condition.

FACTS

According to the State's evidence, during an argument between Mr. Halls and his live-in girl friend, Rhonnda Harshman, Mr. Halls grabbed Ms. Harshman by the throat and pushed her onto the bed.He then picked up a glass candleholder and threw it at Ms. Harshman, hitting her on the head and causing a laceration.Ms. Harshman was transported to the hospital where she received stitches to close the wound.

The State charged Mr. Halls with second degree assault — domestic violence.At his arraignment, the court informed him of the charge against him and his standard range sentence of 63 to 84 months based on his criminal history.The State later amended the information to include "COUNT II - ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE."Clerk's Papers(CP)at 6.This charge included a domestic violence allegation.

Mr. Halls' trial counsel withdrew five days before trial and the court appointed new counsel, who requested a continuance.Mr. Halls declined to waive his speedy trial rights and requested self-representation during the following colloquy:

THE COURT: Do you know what you're doing when you represent yourself?

MR. HALLS: Partially.

THE COURT: Well, do you think you need the assistance of counsel to do with correctly?

MR. HALLS: Um, on my point, no, I don't think so.I'd like to switch from jury trial to have a bench trial and beready for Monday, and I wish to take that upon myself and do it.

THE COURT: You want to do it a nonjury trial?

MR. HALLS: Yes.I would like to have bench trial on Monday.

THE COURT: Now I have two things to address formally on the record.Let me - are you able - how far did you go in school?

MR. HALLS: Probably about the 9th grade.

THE COURT: Are you able to read and write?

MR. HALLS: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand the maximum sentence that you're exposed to is ten years in prison and a $20,000 fine on this charge?

MR. HALLS: OK, yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand the Court will not assist you?You'll be expected to handle all your own legal affairs without assistance from the Court?

MR. HALLS: Yes.

THE COURT: During the trial?

MR. HALLS: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you think you're capable of doing that?

MR. HALLS: Yes.

THE COURT: And have you been in court before?Have you gone to trial before?Have you been through the process?

MR. HALLS: I have been to trial once[.]

Report of Proceedings (RP)(Apr. 4, 1012)at 8.The court then stressed that based on Mr. Halls' multiple prior felonies, the State may ask for an exceptional sentence upward of 120 months.Mr. Halls responded that he understood and still did not want counsel.

The court later asked, "Have you ever had a stay at Eastern State Hospital or any other mental health facility?"RP(Apr. 4, 2012)at 14.Mr. Halls responded, "Eastern and Western and both competent."Id.Mr. Halls then stated he had never been put in a mental health institution after a competency evaluation.The court thenfound Mr. Halls was "competent to make this decision and represent himself and waive his right to trial - or to counsel at trial."RP(Apr. 4, 2012)at 15.The court stated, "He's had the opportunity to speak with counsel, and he's making that choice I believe freely and voluntarily and knowingly.And so I'll consider his right to counsel waived."Id.

Regarding the jury waiver, the following colloquy occurred on the record:

THE COURT: . . . Now a jury trial, do you know the difference between a jury and a nonjury trial?

MR. HALLS: Um, my say on it would be I'd have 12 in the box and one outside of it, 13, and then for a bench trial it would just be the prosecutor, me, and a judge.

THE COURT: Well, you seem to notice the difference.Had you talked over that strategy with your attorney before making the decision?

MR. HALLS: No. I've made that by myself and set that up.

THE COURT: And do you think you know what you're doing?You have a reason for that?I don't want to necessarily know what that is, but do you have a reason for making that decision?

MR. HALLS: I just don't want to waste no more court's time on this.

THE COURT: Do you realize you'll have a jury trial on the 9th, the same day you would have judge trial?

MR. HALLS: That's fine.I realize that.

THE COURT: And you still want to go jury or nonjury?

MR. HALLS: Nonjury.

THE COURT: I'll find that he's waived his right to a jury trial freely and voluntarily and knowingly.Appears to understand what it is, and he's been in the court system a lot, and I'm sure he does understand.

RP(Apr. 4, 2012)at 15-16.Mr. Halls then signed a waiver to his right to a jury trial.

During the bench trial, a witness at the house on the night in question testified Ms. Harshman and Mr. Halls were arguing and that Mr. Halls grabbed Ms. Harshman bythe throat and threw her on the bed.The witness testified Mr. Halls picked up "nunchucks" in an attempt to scare her.RP(Apr. 9, 2012)at 49.Mr. Halls next picked up a candleholder and threw it at Ms. Harshman's head.

Ms. Harshman testified Mr. Halls picked up a candleholder and threw it at her head, causing a large cut that required medical attention.A picture of Ms. Harshman's wound was admitted into evidence.The court noted a scar was visible on her forehead.Mr. Hall denied throwing the candleholder in his defense.

The court found Mr. Halls "picked up a glass candle holder. . . and threw it at Ms. Harshman."CPat 41.The court then found Mr. Halls guilty of second degree assault — domestic violence.The court stated, "Sir, the State charged you with Assault in the Second Degree, or basically in [the] alternative, Assault in the Third Degree for the same acts.I found that the State met its burden on the Assault in the Second Degree, so you're guilty of that.And Count II will be dismissed because you only get found guilty of one count."RP(Apr. 9, 2012)at 82.

Mr. Halls accepted counsel for sentencing.Counsel asked for a competency evaluation.The court granted the motion and stayed proceedings, ordering Eastern State Hospital(ESH) to conduct a forensic mental health evaluation of Mr. Halls' competency.ESH found Mr. Halls did not have a mental disease or defect and had the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and assist counsel.The court entered a competency order without holding an evidentiary hearing.

The court sentenced Mr. Halls to 63 months (the low-end of a standard range sentence) and ordered community placement "for the longer of: (1) the period of early release.ROW 9.94A.728(1)(2); or (2) the period imposed by the court[18 months]."CPat 49.Mr. Halls appealed.

ANALYSIS

A.Evidence Sufficiency

The issue is whether sufficient evidence supports Mr. Halls' conviction for second degree assault - domestic violence.He contends the State's evidence was insufficient to prove he intentionally assaulted Ms. Harshman."In a criminal prosecution, due process requires the State to prove every element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt."State v. Smith, 155 Wn.2d 496, 502, 120 P.3d 559(2005).

Evidence is sufficient if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it permits any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068(1992)."A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom."Id.Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally reliable.State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99(1980).Because it is the fact finder's responsibility to resolve credibility issues and determine the weight of the evidence, we defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence.State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850(1990).

To prove second degree assault — domestic violence, the State had to prove Mr. Halls "intentionally" assaulted Ms. Harshman and thereby recklessly inflicted substantial bodily injury.RCW 9A.36.021(1)(a);RCW 10.99.020(5).Intent may be inferred from the defendant's conduct.Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d at 638.Intent evidence includes the manner and act of inflicting the wound, the nature of the prior relationship, and any previous threats.State v. Mitchell, 65 Wn.2d 373, 374, 397 P.2d 417(1964).

The record shows Ms. Harshman and Mr. Halls were arguing.Mr. Halls grabbed her by the throat and then threw her on the bed.He then picked up "nunchucks" to scare her.RP(Apr. 9, 2012)at 49.Still angry, Mr. Halls grabbed a candleholder and threw it at Ms. Harshman, causing substantial bodily injury....