State v. Smith

• Docket Number: 55329-5-II
• Decision Date: 23 August 2022
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. RANDY SMITH, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. RANDY SMITH, Appellant.

No. 55329-5-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

August 23, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PRICE J.

Randy Smith appeals his eleven convictions for various crimes related to a kidnapping and subsequent shootout with police. Smith argues: (1) he was denied his right to self-representation, (2) he was wrongly denied his request for appointment of new counsel, (3) the trial court abused its discretion by entering a contempt order that deprived him of his right to access the courts, (4) he was improperly restrained at his first appearance and during trial, (5) the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for attempted first degree robbery, and (6) he is entitled to resentencing.

The State concedes that there was insufficient evidence to support Smith's conviction for attempted first degree robbery. We accept the State's concession. We disagree with the remainder of Smith's arguments. Accordingly, we reverse Smith's conviction for attempted first degree robbery but affirm the remainder of Smith's convictions and determine that he is not entitled to be resentenced. Thus, we remand for the trial court to vacate Smith's conviction for attempted first degree robbery.

FACTS

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2018, armed with multiple firearms and over 200 rounds of ammunition, Smith exited a bus in the early evening and approached two Parkland businesses, Best Tire Center and Sky Motors, Inc. Initially entering Best Tire, Smith threatened assistant manager Matthew Brown, as well as several other persons, with a firearm. Smith demanded Brown's car keys. Brown told Smith he did not have his keys with him but that he would go and get them. At that point, Brown fled the business with the others to a nearby gas station. Left alone, Smith then apparently searched the business but did not take anything of value.

As law enforcement was arriving, Smith left Best Tire and walked to Sky Motors with his collection of firearms and ammunition. Smith entered Sky Motors and found three teenagers and one young adult inside. While the police were taking up defensive positions outside Sky Motors, Smith threatened the occupants with one of his firearms and demanded a vehicle. One of the individuals gave Smith keys to a car. After that, three of the four young individuals managed to flee. However, the fourth person, 16-year old M.A.^[1], was taken hostage by Smith. Smith then engaged in a shootout with police before eventually surrendering.

The State charged Smith with six counts of first degree assault one count of first degree robbery, one count of attempted first degree robbery, one count of first degree kidnapping and two counts of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm.

II. REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE

A. JULY 2019 REQUEST AND JULY 29 LETTER

Prior to trial, in July 2019, Smith requested to waive his right to counsel and represent himself. At the July hearing, when the trial court asked about Smith's request, Smith answered with delusional beliefs about conspiracies and FBI informants:

[Smith]: Well, Your Honor, from my understanding, [defense counsel] is a FBI informant. I'm trying to realize or figure out as far as a conspiracy and everything that goes on in this courtroom. I have no idea why these charges were brought against myself. I am a FBI agent. These charges are outrageous. I don't know why I'm here today. I'm asking to be released on my personal recognizance.

THE COURT: Well, the reason you're here today is you've made a request to represent yourself in the case.

[Smith]: Well, Your Honor, I don't dispute that. That was given by one of your agents. I'm here for a debriefing. Anything else is uncivil. I'm here for a debriefing, Your Honor.

THE COURT: A debriefing of what?

[Smith]: As far as this conspiracy, this romper room, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't know what you mean.

[Smith]: Huh?

THE COURT: I don't know what you mean.

[Smith]: From your agents. You're part of the government, right? Can you point out to me or suggest to me how do I proceed as far as the debriefing?

THE COURT: Do you understand you're looking at a third strike, which would be a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole?

[Smith]: Your Honor, I have no idea about any of this, but I have an idea as far as my involvement-

THE COURT: All right.

[Smith]: -in the agency.

THE COURT: I'm going to deny his request to represent himself because I don't believe his request is made knowingly based upon his representations, and in a recent case, a very similar fact pattern that was decided by our Supreme Court where the defendant was talking about a conspiracy against him as opposed to indicating an unequivocal desire to represent himself.

Report of Proceedings (RP) (Jul. 11, 2019) at 3-5. The trial court then entered an order denying Smith's request to represent himself, finding that it was not knowing or unequivocal.

On July 29, 2019, Smith sent the trial court a letter discussing his perceptions from the prior hearing and repeating many of the delusional statements:

Dear honorable Judge:

It was a delight to start or begin the prophecy. As you are aware of the conspiracy and the co-[con]spirators Along with romper room. I will need all Local/International Information inregards of the investigation. I have made formal and informal contact with the agency. [Defense counsel] is double agent he cannot be trusted in Any regard to the conspiracy. However [the deputy prosecuting attorney] is not from our planetary system proceed with extreme caution. I have a duty/protocol to gather All important intel inregards of all unknown life forms in this sector. I have encountered several deadly life forms in this sector. "Agent Sly" And myself find this troubling. I'm A high ranking Agent authorized by the government (F.B.I.) my life as well as yours could be in danger. I need Authorization or clearance from my superior officers to fulfill the prophecies.

Sincerely, Randy Smith

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 315.

B. AUGUST 2019 REQUEST

A few weeks later, Smith again requested to represent himself. On the day of the hearing for Smith's renewed request, the State reminded the trial court that Smith had recently raised a "rather peculiar request" to represent himself and that Smith had also made some "extraordinarily peculiar" filings with the trial court. RP (Aug. 19, 2019) at 23.

Smith told the trial court that he "wish[ed] to exercise [his] Sixth Amendment right to self representation." RP (Aug. 19, 2019) at 26. The trial court asked him why, and Smith answered that he believed he would get the best results if he proceeded pro se. The trial court asked Smith if he had represented himself before, to which Smith replied he had not.

The trial court then engaged in a lengthy colloquy during which it asked Smith about his knowledge of the rules of evidence, criminal procedure, and the process of admitting evidence and making objections. Smith contended he was familiar with the rules and could reference rule books if he was uncertain. The trial court expressed concern about the sufficiency of Smith's knowledge of the rules.

The State opposed Smith's request for self-representation. The State noted that Smith had shown that he did not truly understand what he was requesting. The State argued Smith's answers should be considered in the context of the July hearing and his previous filings:

So the jeopardy and the complexity, and that coupled with his representations now and in past hearings and his filings, the [S]tate would be of great concern that the defendant has evidenced any form of truly knowingly understanding or unequivocally understanding what he's asking for.

I think his answers sound initially good, but would ask to synthesize or elaborate or how they would be applied or how they would affect his jeopardy, coupled, again, with his prior representations.

RP (Aug. 19, 2019) at 36-37. The trial court noted that it had read Smith's July 29 letter and characterized it as "odd, at best." RP (Aug. 19, 2019) at 38.

After the colloquy, the trial court determined that Smith could not represent himself because his waiver of counsel was not knowing or intelligent. In its order denying Smith's request, the trial court specifically referenced the earlier hearing at which Smith discussed his status in the FBI and related delusional conspiracy theories as well as the July 29 letter that repeated these allegations:

Having come on defendant's renewed &scheduled motion to represent himself, after lengthy discussion between the court, and reference to def's pleadings filed 7/29/19 and representations @ earlier hearing, 7/11, the court today DENIES defendant's motion, finding it is not either knowing or intelligently made.

CP at 24 (emphasis added).^[2]

III. CONFLICT BETWEEN SMITH AND DEFENSE COUNSEL

During the course of the proceedings, Smith made multiple allegations that he was being sexually harassed by defense counsel. According to Smith, defense counsel said he would not represent Smith unless Smith became his sex slave. These allegations resulted in two separate criminal investigations into defense counsel, both of which found Smith's claims to be without merit. Smith also made personal threats against defense counsel, accused him of being racist, and filed unfounded bar complaints against him.

Prior to a specific hearing in August 2019, both counsels made a "joint request" to have Smith restrained. The State explained that the request stemmed primarily from the threats of personal harm Smith had made against defense counsel. The State also noted that there were ongoing questions about Smith's mental state and that he had a history of violent crimes. Defense couns...