State v. Kinzle
| Decision Date | 13 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | NO. 68158-3-I,68158-3-I |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JEFFREY M. KINZLE, Appellant. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LEACH, C.J. — Jeffrey Kinzle appeals his conviction for indecent liberties by forcible compulsion. He challenges the court's decision to deny his motion to substitute counsel, the court's determination that it had no reason to doubt his competence to stand trial, and the sufficiency of the evidence. He also alleges prosecutorial misconduct, that his indeterminate sentence is unconstitutional, evidence fabrication, juror bias, witness perjury, erroneously excluded evidence, and violation of his Miranda1 rights. Finding no merit in Kinzle's arguments, we affirm the conviction. Because we accept the State's concession that the court improperly imposed seven of the community custody conditions, we remand for striking the offending conditions from Kinzle's judgment and sentence.
FACTS
On March 13, 2011, the complaining witness2 was working alone in a small grocery store when two males, whom she had not seen before, entered the store. At that time, there were no other customers in the store. One of the men, Jeffrey Kinzle, asked her to show him where to find the cans of jalapeño peppers. As she led the men toward the canned food area, Kinzle grabbed her buttocks.3 She asked Kinzle what was going on, and he responded with laughter. The complaining witness told him to pay for the jalapenos and to leave the store. She and Kinzle walked to the cash register.
Shortly afterward, the other man, Nathan Wood, asked the complaining witness to show him where the chipotle peppers were located. As she neared that area of the store, Kinzle grabbed her from behind and took her to the canned food area. He held her around the waist, squeezed her buttocks and breast, pulled on her clothing, kissed her neck, and rubbed his penis against her. As she tried to resist, she ended up face-to-face with Kinzle. She tried to push him away and yelled in Spanish for him to let her go. During the incident, Wood remained in a separate area of the aisle and did not observe what took place. After Wood heard the complaining witness scream, "like [Kinzle] was attacking her," Woodsaw Kinzle run out of the store. The complaining witness ran out of the store and yelled for help. A bystander helped her call the police.
When the police arrived, Wood told them that Kinzle, his roommate, attacked the complaining witness. Wood escorted the police to their apartment. The police questioned Kinzle, arrested him, and transported him to the store. After viewing Kinzle outside the store, the complaining witness said that she was confused and did not know whether he was the person who attacked her.
The State charged Kinzle with indecent liberties by forcible compulsion. Before trial, Kinzle moved to substitute counsel. After two hearings on the matter in July 2011, the court denied the motion.
In August 2011, the State moved to clarify a potential conflict of interest between Kinzle and his attorney. The State received information that Kinzle threatened his attorney and threatened to blow up government buildings and to kill various people, including the president, police officers, and corrections deputies. In its motion, the State cautioned, "The State has also considered that the Defendant may be deliberately manufacturing a situation that would compel replacement of his attorney." Kinzle's attorney expressed confidence in her ability to continue representing him. On October 31, 2011, during motions in limine, the court raised the issue presented in the State's earlier motion. After acolloquy with Kinzle and his attorney, the court decided that Kinzle's attorney would continue to represent him.
Kinzle did not testify at trial. The complaining witness testified through an interpreter. She testified that when Kinzle entered the store, he had brown hair and blue eyes and wore a hat, blue pants, a jacket, brown shoes, and a red or burgundy sweatshirt. He also had "a little bit of a beard." When the police brought Kinzle to the store later that evening, he was clean-shaven. Her testimony at trial included details that she did not reveal to police during earlier interviews. At trial, she stated that Kinzle asked her if she wanted to feel his penis, that his fly was down during the incident, and that she could feel that he had an erection when he rubbed himself against her.
Wood testified that Kinzle did not appear differently when he was arrested than he appeared at the time of the incident. Michael Flavin, Kinzle's other roommate, testified that before the police arrived at the apartment, Kinzle shaved and removed his hat and a gray fleece jacket that had dark sleeves and put on a sweatshirt. Brent Vannoy, who was in jail with Kinzle, also testified for the State. He told the court that Kinzle planned to "beat[] his charge" by shaving after the incident and by acting "crazy and stuff for the Court so they thought he was looney and get away with what he did."
A jury convicted Kinzle as charged. He had an offender score of five, a total standard range of 77-102 months, and a maximum life term. The court sentenced Kinzle to an indeterminate sentence, with a minimum sentence of 102 months of confinement and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The sentence included 21 conditions of community custody. Kinzle appeals.
ANALYSIS
Motion To Substitute Counsel
Kinzle first claims that the trial court denied him effective assistance of counsel when it denied his motion for new counsel. He asserts that he and his attorney had "an ongoing, intractable conflict" that "amounted to a total breakdown in communications." He argues that "instead of inquiring into that conflict," the court improperly focused its inquiry on trial counsel's competence. The State counters that Kinzle's concerns "related primarily to tactics, strategy and his lost confidence in his attorney."
We review for abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to deny a motion to substitute counsel.4 If the attorney-client relationship "completely collapses, the refusal to substitute new counsel violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel."5 A defendant "'must show good cause'"before the trial court will allow substitution of counsel, "'such as a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and the defendant."'6
A defendant is not entitled to a particular lawyer with whom he thinks he can have a meaningful attorney-client relationship.7 A general loss of confidence or trust alone is insufficient to substitute new counsel.8 The attorney and the defendant must be "so at odds as to prevent presentation of an adequate defense."9 To determine whether the trial court properly denied Kinzle's motion to substitute counsel, we consider (1) the nature and extent of the alleged conflict, (2) the adequacy of the court's inquiry, and (3) the timeliness of the motion.10 We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Kinzle's motion.
Regarding the first factor, we analyze both (1) the nature and extent of the breakdown in communication between the attorney and the client and (2) the breakdown's effect on the representation that the client actually received.11Kinzle fails to show that any alleged breakdown in communications satisfies the first factor.
Kinzle addressed the trial court during two hearings on the motion. He stated his belief that he would not receive "fair representation." He asserted, 12 Furthermore, he explained, Although Kinzle told the court that his attorney acted in "an almost strong-arm manner" to convince him to accept a plea deal, the court noted that he did not accept a plea offer. Kinzle also physically threatened his attorney and told the court that he believed "she works for the same fucking people that are trying to give me life [in prison]."
After the court granted a continuance for Kinzle and his attorney to "work this out," Kinzle told the court that he had spoken with his attorney. When the trial court denied the motion to substitute counsel, it noted that Kinzle's attorney was investigating all of his witnesses in the matter and that she and Kinzle wereable to communicate at that point. The court explained, "There may be some differences getting ready for trial tactics and whatnot, but that's not a reason to switch horses in midstream." Later, at a hearing on the State's motion to clarify a potential conflict of interest, the court determined that it "simply would treat any threats made as a product of somebody being upset at the moment" and that no evidence suggested that Kinzle's attorney would be unable to adequately represent him. Moreover, the court noted, "He's indicated today that he's comfortable having Ms. Trueblood continue to represent him."
Counsel has wide latitude to control trial strategy and tactics.13 "'Counsel is not, at the risk of being charged with incompetence, obliged to raise every conceivable point, however frivolous, damaging or inconsequential it may appear at the time, or to argue every point to the court and jury which in retrospect may seem important to the defendant.'"14 Posttrial scrutiny of an attorney's trial tactics would cause the attorney to "'lose the very freedom of action so essential to a skillful representation of the accused.'"15
Kinzle told the court that he would only...
To continue reading
Request your trial