State v. Vanwinkle
| Decision Date | 30 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | 31318-2-III |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. BRANDON L. VANWINKLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Brandon Van Winkle appeals his conviction for custodial assault claiming he was incompetent to stand trial and represent himself. He also argues the trial court erred by failing to enter written findings of fact supporting its CrR 3.5 ruling. Because we can discern the basis of the trial court's CrR 3.5 ruling from its oral decision, we hold that the trial court's failure to enter written findings was harmless error. We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Mr. Van Winkle was competent to stand trial and was entitled to self-representation. We therefore affirm.
While incarcerated at the Benton County Jail, Mr. Van Winkle assaulted a jail sergeant. The State charged him with custodial assault. At arraignment, Mr. Van Winkle objected to the court's appointment of counsel for him, stating Report of Proceedings (RP) (Aug. 2, 2012) at 2. On August 9, 2012 Judge Craig Matheson addressed Mr. Van Winkle's request to waive counsel. Mr. Van Winkle confirmed that he wished to represent himself.
The court had the following exchange with Mr. Van Winkle;
The trial court accepted Mr. Van Winkle's waiver of counsel, finding he had the ability, "at least nominally, " to represent himself. RP (Aug. 9, 2012) at 4. The court advised Mr. Van Winkle that Michelle Alexander was available to assist him as standby counsel. Mr. Van Winkle responded, RP (Aug. 9, 2012) at 6.
On August 23, 2012, the parties were back in court before Judge Matheson for a CrR 3.5 hearing. The State moved to continue the hearing because Ms. Alexander and one of the State's witnesses were unavailable. Mr. Van Winkle advised the court that he did not need Ms. Alexander to be present because RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 8. Mr. Van Winkle then became agitated and advised the judge, "This is your courtroom, you're working for me." RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 9. After the court advised Mr. Van Winkle the hearing was being continued one week, Mr. Van Winkle made multiple discovery demands, including that witness interviews be scheduled, that disciplinary records be turned over for jail officers involved in the incident, that criminal histories be provided for all witnesses, and that multiple witnesses be subpoenaed on his behalf, including "Mr. Obama" and Christina Aguilera, RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 11.
In response to Mr. Van Winkle's references to Ms. Aguilera and President Obama as witnesses, the State expressed concern about Mr. Van Winkle's competency. Mr. Van Winkle responded by telling the deputy prosecutor, "You might want to go read the Bible." RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 12. The court stated it would consider a motion for an evaluation at Eastern State Hospital, to which Mr. Van Winkle replied: "Do you guys know who I am?" RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 14. He then stated that he was and that his RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 14. The court entered an order for a mental health evaluation.
On October 18, 2012, the parties were back in court after Dr. Randall Strandquist, a licensed psychologist at Eastern State Hospital completed an evaluation of Mr. Van Winkle. Dr. Strandquist concluded that Mr. VanWinkle did not have a mental disease or defect and had "the capacity to understand court proceedings and productively participate in his own defense." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 30. Dr. Strandquist's report concluded:
Dr. Strandquist described Mr. VanWinkle as having antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic traits. His report noted that Mr. VanWinkle had no history of being treated for or diagnosed with any mental health disorders. The report detailed Mr. Van Winkle's behavior while at Eastern State Hospital, including being fully oriented and alert, friendly and cooperative at times, but then becoming rude and threatening when ward rules and limitations were enforced. The report documented that over the course of several days Mr. Van Winkle threatened staff, attempted to assault a staff member, and assaulted another patient.
At an October 18, 2012 hearing to address Mr. Van Winkle's competency to stand trial, Ms. Alexander addressed the court, stating that Mr. Van Winkle was adamant that he wanted to represent himself. She also stated that if she was representing Mr. Van Winkle instead of acting only as standby counsel, she would request a second competency evaluation. The following exchange then took place:
The court entered an order of competency.
On November 1, 2012, before Judge Robert Swisher, Ms. Alexander made a lengthy record that Mr. Van Winkle did not want her assistance as standby counsel and asked that she be removed from the case. Ms, Alexander also stated that she continued to believe that Mr. Van Winkle was not competent to stand trial. The court noted that competency had already been addressed by Judge Matheson at a prior hearing and declined to readdress it. The court ruled that Ms. Alexander would not be removed as standby counsel.
The court then proceeded to the CrR 3.5 hearing. The State called a total of four witnesses: the jail officer who was the victim of the assault and the three jail officers who were present when this occurred. Mr. VanWinkle cross-examined each of the officers, who all stated that he was yelling threatening and derogatory statements at them after they moved him to a new cell. All four also testified that Mr. VanWinkle's statements were not in response to any questions by jail officers. After being advised by the court about his rights regarding testifying at the CrR 3.5 hearing, Mr. VanWinkle elected not to testify. In closing argument, Mr. VanWinkle commented that RP (Nov. 1, 2012) at 52. The court ruled that Mr. Van Winkle's statements were admissible, finding "[t]hey were not in response to questions." RP (Nov. 1, 2012) at 52.
Trial commenced on November 5, 2012,...
To continue reading
Request your trial