### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: No. 58020

- 9

- II
XAVIER MICHAEL MAGA Ñ A † , UNPUBLISHED OPINION Petitioner.
C HE , J.

⎯ Xavier Michael Maga ñ a appeals the transfer of his 2013 motion to withdraw his guilty plea as a personal restraint petition (PRP)

. In 2011, Magaña pleaded guilty to first degree murder

. At sentencing, Magaña requested to withdraw his guilty plea based on incompetency and ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied Magaña ’s motion s and proceeded to sentencing

. In a direct appeal, we held that Magaña provided insufficient evidence to require the trial court to conduct a competency hearing and that Magaña had not shown his counsel’s performance was deficient or otherwise affected his decision to plead guilty

. 1
I n December 2013, Magaña moved to w ithdraw his g uilty p lea (2013 motion)

. Years later, the trial court denied Magaña ’s 2013 motion. Magaña appealed and we reversed the trial court, remanding Magaña ’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea “so that the trial court can hold a

† The spelling of Petitioner’s surname has been corrected in this opinion.

1 State v. Maga ñ a , noted at 170 W n . App. 1039 , 2012 WL 5348962 , at * 3

- 4

. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two June 4, 2024No. 58020

- 9

- II

2

show cause hearing.” 2 The trial court did not hold a show cause hearing and instead transferred the matter to us under CrR 7.8 to be treated as a PRP

. W e hold the trial court failed to comply with our opinion and mandate to hold a show cause hearing

. Accordingly , we remand for the trial court to hold a show cause hearing consistent with our previous opinion and mandate.
FACTS In 2011, Magaña p le ade d guilty to first degree m urder utilizing an Alford plea

. 3 At sentencing, Magaña moved to withdraw his guilty plea

— alleging that he was incompetent at the time he plea ded guilty

— and he expressed a desire to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

. The trial court denied Magaña ’s motio n s and sentenced him accordingly

. Magaña filed a direct appeal , 4 allegin g that the trial court erred by not conducting a competency hearing prior to denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Magaña further argued tha t his counsel provided ineffective assistance by advis ing him to accept the State’s plea offer and pressuring him to plead guilty while know ing that a pre - trial psychological evaluatio n concluded Magaña had a potential defense of diminished capacity.
In 2012, w e affirmed Magaña ’s conviction, holding that he presented ins ufficient evidence to require the trial court to conduct a competency hearing and that he had not shown his counsel’s performance was deficient or otherwise affected his decision to plead guilty

.

2 State v. Maga ñ a , No. 55800

- 9

- II, s lip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2022) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2055800

- 9

- II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf

.
3 North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970)

.
4 Maga ñ a , noted at 170 Wn. App. 1039 , slip op. at 1 2

.No. 58020

- 9

- II

3

I n December 2013 , Magaña moved to withdraw his guilty plea under CrR 7.8 and
CrR 4.2

. In his motion, Magaña alleged due process violation s , ineffective assistance of counsel , denial of his right to confrontation , newly discovered evidence , and cumulative error. The trial
court did not rule on Magaña ’s 2013 motion and Magaña did not take a ny action on the motion for years . I n November 2020, the trial court determined that Magaña ’s 2013 motion was timely and that Magaña had made a substantial showing that he was entitled to relief

. The court further ordered that Magaña ’s motion “shall be heard on its merits.” Clerk’s Papers ( CP ) at 132. Th e
court ordered a response from the State and maintained that “ [ a ] fter reviewing the response, the Court will determine whether this case will be transferred to the Court of Appeals, or if a hearing sha ll be scheduled

. ” CP at 132.
I n January 2021, t he trial court denied Magaña ’s 2013 motion based on the “law of the
case doctrine

. ” CP at 236. The trial court found that we ruled on the ineffective assistance of counsel claims in Magaña ’s direct appeal in 2012. Additionally, the trial court ruled that Magaña was precluded from arguing claims that could have been raised in the direct appeal had he presented them. Magaña appealed the trial court’s order denying his 2013 motion and we r eversed the trial court, remanding Magaña ’s motion “so that the trial court can hold a show cause hearing .” Magaña , No. 55800

- 9

- II, slip op. at 12. In July 2023, our opinion became the final decision , and terminated our review. Mandate, State v. Magaña , No. 55800

- 9

- II, at 1 (Wash. July 25, 2023). On remand, the trial court made new findings and transferred Magaña ’s motion to us to
be treated as a PRP because it “is not time barred but does not meet the criteria underNo. 58020

- 9

- II

4

CrR 7.8(c)(2) to allow the court to retain jurisdiction for a decision on the merits. ” 5 Br. of Resp’t App

. at 365 ( Revised Ord

. on Def

. ’s Mot

. to Withdraw Guilty Plea )

. Magaña appeals.
ANALYSIS
A motion for withdrawal of a guilty plea made after judgment is governed by CrR 7.8. CrR 4.2(f). CrR 7.8 requires the trial court to transfer a motion to withdraw a guilty plea made after judgment to us unless the court determines that the motion is timely and “either (i) the defendant has made a substantial showing that [they] [are] entitled to relief or (ii) resolution of the motion will require a factual hearing.” CrR 7.8(c)(2). “An appellate court’s mandate is binding on the lower court and must be strictly followed. While a remand ‘for further proceedings’ ‘signals this court’s expectation that the trial court will exercise its discretion to decide any issue necessary to resolve the case,’ the trial court cannot ignore the appellate court’s specific holdings and directions on remand

. ” Bank of Am.,
NA v. Owe ns , 177 Wn. App. 181, 189, 311 P.3d 594 (2013) (footnotes omitted)

. “Upon issuance of the mandate of the appellate court as provided in [RAP] 12.5, the action taken or decision made by the appellate court is effective and binding on the parties to the rev iew and governs all subsequent proceedings in the action in any court .” RAP 12.2

. Magaña appealed the trial court’s January 2021 order denying his 2013 motion to withdraw his guilty plea and we reversed the trial court, remanding Magaña ’s motion to the trial

5 I n April 2023, Maga ñ a objected to the transfer of his 2013 motion and moved to remand the trial court’s transfer of his motion to the appellate court

. Our c ommissioner determined that Maga ñ a’s motion would be treated as an objection to the transfer order and would be considere d with his petition. Ruling on Mot s. , Pers

. Restraint Pet

. of Maga ñ a , No. 58020

- 9

- II, at 1 (Wash. Aug. 3, 2023)

.No. 58020

- 9

- II

5

court “ to hold a show cause hearing.” Magaña , No. 55800

- 9

- II, slip op. at 1 1

. T he trial court did not conduct a show cause hearing . Instead, it issued an order with new findings and transferred the matter to us to be treated as a PRP. But, our holding and direction on remand was specific such that there was no room for the trial court to exercise discretionary authority to reconsider whether it should retain Magaña ’s motion for a decision on the merits . Our language did not signal an expectation that the trial court will exercise its discretion to decide any issue necessary to resolve the matter. Moreover, our mandate is binding on the trial court and must be strictly followed. We hold the trial court failed to comply with our opinio n and mandate to hold a show cause hearing.
CONCLUSION
W e remand for the trial court to hold a show cause hearing consistent with our previous opinion and mandate issued in this case

. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will no t be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

Che, J. We concur:

Cruser, C.J.

Veljacic, J.