State v. Jameson

• Decision Date: 28 June 2011
• Docket Number: 39774-9-II
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. RAYMALL A. JAMESON, JR., Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
RAYMALL A. JAMESON, JR., Appellant.

No. 39774-9-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

June 28, 2011

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Hunt, J.

Raymall A. Jameson, Jr. appeals his felony driving under the influence (DUI) jury conviction, asking us to reverse and to dismiss the felony DUI and to remand for entry of a gross misdemeanor DUI conviction. He argues that (1) the State failed to prove he committed one of the four prior DUI convictions required for a felony DUI conviction, and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to move either for bifurcation of trial or for a stipulation that removed prior DUI convictions from the jury's consideration. We affirm.

FACTS

I. Felony Driving under the Influence

Around noon on June 20, 2009, Washington State Patrol Officer Sherry A. Murphy sat in her patrol car on the shoulder of northbound Interstate 5, filling out an affidavit from her previous traffic stop. In her rearview mirror she saw a full-sized white van crossing the fog line and coming right at her. As the van came closer, she could hear the noise it made traveling on the "rumble strip" separating the shoulder from the travelled portion of the road. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 19. The van's driver, later identified as Raymall A. Jameson, Jr., swerved the van back into his lane of travel in time to avoid colliding with Murphy's patrol car.

After waiting for a break in traffic, Murphy maneuvered her patrol car to follow about three or four cars behind Jameson's van. She did not immediately try to stop the van because the shoulder of the upcoming section of Interstate 5 was dangerous. Jameson crossed over the fog line two more times and then drifted into the left lane, causing the driver in the left lane to jerk his car onto the interior shoulder and slam on his brakes. Murphy activated her lights, but Jameson did not stop his van; instead, he continued northbound, drifting back into his lane of travel. Murphy activated her siren, and Jameson pulled over.

Murphy approached Jameson's vehicle from the passenger side and motioned for him to put the window down. Using the automatic door opener, Jameson unlocked the passenger side door of his van and instructed Murphy to open the door herself. When she opened the door, she immediately detected the odor of intoxicants, and two beer cans fell out of the van door, one of which began spraying underneath the vehicle. When Murphy asked Jameson for his license and registration, he fumbled with papers for awhile and then threw them at her, telling her that she could get the papers herself but that he did not have a license.

Jameson had bloodshot droopy eyes, a flushed face, and slurred speech. He was verbally abusive and experiencing mood swings. After Jameson failed a field sobriety test, Murphy arrested him for DUI and put him in the back of her patrol car. When she discovered that the courts had previously revoked Jameson's license and required his vehicle to have an ignition- interlock device, ^[1] she inspected the van and found a partially consumed bottle of gin but no ignition-interlock device.

When Jameson refused a breath test at the Lewis County jail, Murphy obtained a search warrant to draw a sample of Jameson's blood. Jameson's blood sample, taken about three hours after his arrest, revealed a blood alcohol level of .11.^[2]

II. Procedural Facts

Alleging that Jameson had four prior DUI convictions, the State charged Raymall A. Jameson, Jr.^[3] with felony driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502(1), (6)), ^[4] count I; first degree driving while license revoked (RCW 46.20.342(1)(a)), count II; and driving without an ignition interlock device (RCW 46.20.740(2)), count III. Jameson did not move to sever the charges or to bifurcate the trial into phases.

In addition to testimony about the DUI arrest on June 20, 2009, the arresting officers associated with Jameson's 2001, 2002, and 2007 DUI arrests testified and identified Jameson as the person previously cited and convicted of three of his prior DUI convictions. But neither the arresting officer nor any other individual associated with Jameson's 1999 conviction testified. The State also presented individual certified court documents for his prior DUI convictions. Jameson objected to the certified copies from Tacoma Municipal Court for the 2007 conviction because there was no court supervisor to testify that these documents were court records:

Counsel for Jameson: Well, I think someone needs to identify them, he's got someone to come in and identify them

The Court: Is someone going to come in and do that

The State: No

The Court: They're certified copies, objection overruled they will be admitted as

[Exhibit] 6.

VRP at 141.

For the same reason, Jameson also objected to the certified copies of a docket report from King County District Court, Seattle Division for Jameson's 1999 DUI conviction^[5]:

Counsel for Jameson: Again, is somebody going to come in and identify it?

The State: No.

The Court: Be admitted as [Exhibit] 7.

VRP at 142.

A Pierce County District Court supervisor testified and identified the certified copies of documents for Jameson's 2002 and 2001 DUI convictions. The trial court admitted these without objection.

During closing argument, the State reviewed the documents from the various courts and from the Department of Licensing. The jury convicted Jameson of all three counts, including a special verdict finding four prior DUI convictions for count I. The trial court sentenced Jameson to 54 months of confinement for felony DUI, count I; 365 days for first degree driving while license revoked, count II; and 90 days for driving without an ignition interlock device, count III.

Jameson appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. Prior DUI—Challenge to Identification for First Time on Appeal

Jameson argues that his felony DUI conviction violated his constitutional right of due process because there is insufficient evidence to support it. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to prove that he committed the 1999 DUI conviction because the State presented as evidence only a certified copy of the King County District Court docket (Exhibit 7) without further identifying him as the Jameson named in Exhibit 7.

The State responds that, because Jameson did not specifically object at trial that the documents lacked information identifying him, he has failed to preserve this issue for subsequent appeal.^[6] Agreeing with the State that Jameson failed to preserve this issue for appeal, we also hold that the identifying information on the documents was sufficient in light of Jameson's failure to challenge, which would have put the State on notice to provide additional documentation.

A. Failure To Preserve

A party may assign error in the appellate court only on the specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial. State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412, 422, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) cert denied, 475 U.S. 1010 (1986). Non-specific objections made at trial or objections made without articulating the basis are inadequate to preserve appellate review. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d at 422 (citing State v. Boast, 87 Wn.2d 447, 553 P.2d 1322 (1976)). Our courts have "'steadfastly adhered to the rule that a litigant cannot remain silent as to claimed error during trial and later, for the first time, urge objections thereto on appeal.'" Guloy, 104 Wn.2d at 422 (quoting Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405 v. Lee, 70 Wn.2d 947, 950, 425 P.2d 902 (1967)).

ER 103(a)(1) provides that, in order to assign error to admission of evidence, the party must make a timely objection and state "the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context." Consistent with ER 103(a)(1), Division One of our court has held that a defendant waived an objection that evidence did not establish one of his prior convictions because he could have objected below but failed to do so. State v. Gray, 134 Wn.App. 547, 557-58, 138 P.3d 1123 (2006), review denied, 160 Wn.2d 1008 (2007). Jameson neither objected when the State moved to admit the documents nor argued in closing that the State had failed to prove any element of the offense, let alone that the State had failed to prove that it was in fact this same Raymall A. Jameson who had been convicted of the four prior DUIs.^[7]

Normally, we will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, would not further consider Jameson's...