IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON ,

Respondent ,

v. KENNETH LEE STONE ,

Appellant

. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 38808

- 5

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

C OONEY , J.

— Kenneth Stone , along with t hree codefendants , w as charged with the kidnapping and murder of Bre t Snow . Mr. Stone reached a plea agreement with the
State conditioned on him providing truthful testi mony in his codefendants ’ trials

. On the day Mr. Stone was scheduled to testify in co defendant Colby Vodder’s trial, Mr. Stone’s attorney was unable to be present

. In his attorney’s absence, Mr. Stone furnished the jury with untruthful testi mony . Based on Mr. Stone’s breach, t he State withdrew the plea agreement

. Mr. Stone unsuccessfull y moved the trial court to enforce the plea agreement before l ate r plead ing guilty to second degree murder. FILED APRIL 4 , 202 4 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals Division IIINo. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

2 Mr. Stone appeals contending that he was depriv ed of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the trial court erred in imposing certain legal financial obligations (LFO s ) against him

. We decline Mr. Stone’s request to reinstate the plea agreement and remand for the court to strike certain LFOs from the judgment and sentence. BACKGROUND
Mr. Stone and Cheryl Sutton resided together in Newman Lake. Alvaro Guajardo lived in a garage on the property that had been converted into a bedroom. Mr. Stone, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Guajardo, and Colby Vodder were engaged in the drug trade . Bret Snow sold drugs for Ms. S utton , was financially indebted to her , and had , on occasion, stolen from her. On December 2, 2015, Mr. Snow arrived at Ms. Sutton’s property and was confronted by Ms. Sutton over money that she was owed. During th e confrontation, Mr. Stone bound Mr. Sno w’s hands

. Ms. Sutton then str uck Mr. Snow

. Mr. Guajardo ferried Mr. Snow to his room in the garage. Later , Mr. Guajardo and Mr. Vodder forced Mr. Snow in to the trunk of a car and departed with the intent of shoot ing Mr. Snow and dispos ing of his body. They later returned to the property , claim ing they were unable to find an appealing place to shoot Mr. Snow. The following day , Mr. Vodder returned to the property and went to Mr. Guajardo’s room w h ere Mr. Snow was still restrained. At some point , Mr. Snow was f ree d from the restraints and gotNo. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

3 into a physical altercat i on with Mr. Vodder. Mr. Vodder beat Mr. Snow with a metal object , severely injuring him. Mr. Vodder and Mr. Guajardo decided that Mr. Snow was injured so badly that they needed to eithe r take him to the hospital or kill him. After two or three failed attempts, Mr. Guajardo “mercy kill [ed] ” Mr. Snow by strangulation

. Clerk’s Papers ( CP ) at 199. Mr. Vodder and Mr. Guajardo then dismember ed Mr. Snow’s body and plac ed his remain s in to buc kets. In August 2015, members of the Spokane County Sheriff’s
SWAT 1 team executed a search warrant on the property in connection with the drug distribution scheme. Mr. Stone and Ms. Sutton were subsequently indicted for conspiracy to deliver controlled s ubstances. Following inquiries by Mr. Snow’s family regarding his disappearance, Detective Lyle Johnston of the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, obtained Mr. Snow’s phone records . The records revealed Mr. Snow had last used his phone in the Newman Lake area. Detective Johnston contacted Karen Nelson , the last person Mr. Snow had contacted prior to his disappearance. Through Ms. Nelson, Detective Johnston learned that Mr. Snow had been dropped off at Ms. Sutton’s property prior to his disappearance.
Af ter interviewing numerous individuals, Detective Johnston and Detective Jim Dresback believe d Mr. Stone, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Vodder, and Mr. Guajardo were involved in Mr.

1 Special weapons and tactics.No. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

4 Snow’s disappearance. Eventually, t he State charged the quartet with first degree murder , or in the alternative , second degree murder , first degree kidnapping , and conspiracy to commit first degree kidnapping

. F IRST P LEA A GREEMENT During the pendency of the investigation into Mr. S now ’s disappearance, Mr.
Stone was incarcerated on federal c harges related to control led substance violations. Following negotiations with both federal and S tate prosecutors , Mr. Stone agreed to offer testi mony about Mr. Snow’s disappearance and death in Mr. Vodder ’s trial (First Plea Agreement)

. In exchange for Mr. Stone’s truthful testimony , the State agreed to dismiss
his murder charge. Mr. Stone would then plead guilty to kidnapping with the State recommend ing his sentence run concurrent with his federal charges

. 2 At Mr. Stone’s request , th e plea agreement w as not reduced to writing. In advance of Mr. Vodder’s trial, Mr. Stone’s attorney, Bryan Whitaker, informed Mr. Stone and the deputy prosecuting attorney, Mark Cipolla, of a scheduling conflict on the anticipated day of Mr. Stone’s testimony

. Neither Mr . Stone nor Mr. Cipolla oppos ed Mr. Whitaker’s absence

. Mr. Stone testified in Mr. Vodder’s trial without the benefit of having Mr. Whitaker present. Mr. Stone’s testimony proved to be untruthful, resulting in the court ordering a mistrial. As a result of Mr. Stone’s untruthful testimony , the State withdrew the First Plea Agreement.No. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

5 H EARING ON C r R 3.5 & M OTION TO E NFORCE F IRST P LEA A GREEMENT With the assistance of new counsel, Timothy Trageser, Mr. Stone filed a motion to
dismiss or , in the alternativ e , t o enforce the First Plea Agreement. Mr. Stone further moved to suppress certain statements he had made to law enforcement officers and for a fact

- finding hearing on the issues. The State agreed that a CrR 3.5 motion was necessary

to adjudge the facts of the case. The court conducted a joint evidentiary hearing on the motion to enforce the First Plea Agreement and a confession procedure under CrR 3.5. At the hearing , Mr. Stone testified that he was not informed that Mr. Whitaker would be absent from the trial and , during the brief conversation he had with Mr. Whitaker, he did not excuse Mr. Whitaker ’s presence . Mr. Stone also testified that Mr. Cipolla had not discussed Mr. Whitaker’s absence until shortly before he testified and that Mr. Cipolla ne ver inform ed him that he had a right to not testify. The court also heard testimony from Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Cipolla. Mr. Whitaker testified that he spoke with Mr. Stone in advance of Mr. Vodder’s trial. Mr. Whitaker
testified he informed Mr. Stone th at he had a conflict in his schedule, reiterated the importance of Mr. Stone testifying t ruthful ly , and that Mr. Stone excused his presence from the trial . Mr. Cipolla testified that Mr. Whitaker had informed both he and Mr. Stone of his unavailability fo r trial . Mr. Cipolla testified that Mr. Stone agree d to

2 The federal court sentenced Mr. Stone to 141 months ’ incarceration.No. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

6 testifying without Mr. Whitaker being presen t . Mr. Cipolla further testified that he had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Stone , wherein he o ffered to move the date of Mr. Stone’s testimony to accomm odate Mr. Whitaker ’s schedule

. Mr. Cipolla testified that Mr. Stone refused the accommodation, stating, “No, I’m good. I’m good to go. I want to get this over with.” Rep. of Proc. ( RP ) at 74. During this time , Mr. Cipolla informed Mr. Stone that his p lea deal was contingent on Mr. Stone offering truthful testimony. Mr. Cipolla also testified that immediately prior to Mr. Stone’s testimony, he conferred with Mr.
Stone and that “[Mr. Stone] affirmed in no uncertain terms that, yeah, he’s ready to go.”
RP at 75. After considering the testimony of Mr. Stone, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Cipolla, and Detective Johnston, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on the CrR 3.5 hearing. The court found Mr. Cipolla ’s and Mr. Whitaker’s testimony
d emonstrated that Mr. Stone knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that his statements were not coerced. The court concluded that Mr. Stone had breached the First Plea Ag reement “by lying during his testimony.” CP at 231. The court later entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the motion to enforce the F irst P lea A greement. These findings where in addition to the findings of the CrR 3.5 hearing. In its fi ndings of fact related to the First Plea Agreement, t he court found the testimony of Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Cipolla credible, and the testimony of Mr.No. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

7 Stone not credible. The court found the First Plea Agreement was valid, determined that Mr. Stone willfull y breached the terms of the agreement , and denied Mr. Stone’s motion

to enforce the First Plea Agreement.
S ECOND P LEA A GREEMENT A few weeks following the court’s denial of his motion to enforce the First Plea Agreement, Mr. Stone entered into a S econd P lea A greement with the State. Under the terms of the Second Plea A greement, Mr. Stone would plead guilty to second degree murder in exchange for the State moving to dismiss the charges of first degree kidnapping and conspiracy to commit first degree kidna pping and recomm ending to the

court that his sentence run concurr ent to his 141

- month federal sentence. On February 12, 2021, t he State filed an amended information charging Mr. Stone with second degree murder. In plea ding guilty to second degree murder , Mr. Stone signed a statement of defendant on plea of guilty , wherein he acknowledged, “ My lawyer has explained to me, and we have fully discussed, all of the above paragraphs

. . . . I understand them all. I have been given a copy of this ‘ Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty. ’ I have no further questions to ask the judge. ” CP at 249. Mr. Stone’s attorney signed the statement
of defendant on plea of guilty claiming, “I have read and discussed this statement with
the defendant. I believe that the defendant is competent and fully understands th e statement.” CP at 249. In accepting Mr. Stone’s guilty plea, the trial court found “ theNo. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

8 defendant ’ s plea of guilty to be knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Defendant understands the charges a nd the c onsequences of the plea. There is a factual basis for the plea. The defendant is guilty as charged. ” CP at 250.
In honoring the terms of the S econd P lea A greement, on March 9, 2021, the court sentenced Mr. Stone to 254 months ’ confinement to be served concurrent with his federal

sentence . The judgment and sentence ordered Mr. Stone to serve 36

- months ’ community custody and r equired him t o pay a ny supervision fees as determined by the D epartment of Corrections. Mr. Stone was also ordered to pay a $500 victim penalty assessment (VPA), a $200 criminal filing fee, and a $100 DNA collection fee. Mr. Stone timely appeals. ANALYSIS On appeal, Mr. Stone contend s he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to consult with counsel before testifying at Mr . Vodder’s trial and that the trial court erred
when it impos ed certain LFOs . He requests the First Plea Agreement be reinstated and
that the LFOs be excised from his judgment and sentence. We agree with the State’s argument that Mr. Stone ’s guilty plea constitutes a waive r of his ability to challenge the trial court’s denial of his motion to enforce the First Plea Agreement. Accordingly, we need not address Mr. Stone’s remaining contentions. Further, we accept the State’s concession related to Mr. Sto ne’s LFOs.No. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

9 W AIVER OF A PPELLATE R EVIEW An accused’s plea of guilty limits their right of appellate review as it generally
constitutes a waiver of the right

. State v. Majors , 94 Wn.2d 354, 356, 616 P.2d 1237 (1980). This is due to a guilty plea being mor e than an accused’s admission of various

acts. Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969). Once a guilty plea is accepted by the court, the only remaining task is to give judgment and determine punishment. Id

. A guil ty plea does not , however, foreclose all avenues of review. Following a guilty plea, a defendant may a ppeal sentencing errors and collateral questions such as the validity of a statute, sufficiency of the information, jurisdiction of the court, or the vol untariness of the plea. In re Per s. Restraint of Schorr , 191 Wn.2d 315, 322

- 23, 422 P.3d 451 (2018); State v. Peltier , 181 Wn.2d 290, 294

- 95, 332 P.3d 457 (2014). Absent from such collateral attack is a defendant ’s ability to appeal the denial of any pre trial motions. State v. Olson , 73 Wn. App. 348, 353, 869 P.2d 110 (1994). Forsooth, t he Supreme Court has long held: [A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. When a criminal defendant has s olemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. He m ay only attack the voluntary and intelligent character ofNo. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

10 the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from counsel was not within the standards set forth in McMann

. [ 3 ]
Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S. Ct. 1602, 36 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1 973)

. Our S tate has followed federal precedent. “ I t is well established in Washington that a defendant may waive his right to direct appeal.” In re Pers. Restraint of Amos , 1 Wn. App. 2d 578, 591, 406 P.3d 707 (2017) (citing State v. Smith , 134 Wn.2d 8 49, 852, 953 P.2d 810 (1998)). However, in order for that waiver to be upheld, the State has the burden of showing that a defendant made a “ ‘voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal. ’ ” Id . (quoting State v. Sweet , 90 Wn.2d 282, 2 86, 581 P.2d 579 (1978 ) ). T o meet this burden, the State must show the defendant understood his right to appeal and the effect of waiving his right. State v. Kells , 134 Wn.2d 309, 314, 949 P.2d 818 (1998). There is no presumption of waiver simply becaus e a defendant plead ed guilty to a criminal charge. Id

.

“ When a defendant completes a plea statement and admits to reading, understanding, and signing it, this creates a strong presumption that the plea is voluntary. ” Smith , 134 Wn.2d at 852 ( citing St ate v. Perez , 33 W n . App. 258, 261, 654 P.2d 708 (1982 ) ). A criminal defendant can rebut this presumption with evidence the plea was not made knowing ly , intelligent ly , or voluntar il y. Id.

3 McMann v. Richardson , 397 U.S. 759, 90 S. Ct. 1441, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763 (1970)

.No. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

11 Mr. Stone signed the 12

- page statement of defendant on plea of gui lty, wherein he acknowledged, “My lawyer has explained to me, and we have fully discussed, all of the above paragraphs

. . . . I understand them all. ” CP at 249. Mr. Stone’s attorney also signed the statement on plea of guilty , claiming, “I have read an d discussed this statement with the defendant. I believe that the defendant is competent and fully understands th e statement.” CP at 249. In accepting Mr. Stone’s guilty plea, the trial court found “the
defendant ’ s plea of guilty to be knowingly, intell igently and voluntarily made. Defendant understands the charges and the consequences of the plea. There is a factual basis for the plea. The defendant is guilty as charged.” CP at 250. Accordingly, there exists a strong presumption that Mr. Stone ente red his guilty plea i ntelligent ly , voluntar ily , and with an understanding of the consequences. In response to the State’s argument that his guilty plea constitutes a waiver of his ability to appeal the denial of his motion to enforce the First Plea Agree ment, Mr. Stone neglects to put forth any evidence to rebut the strong presumption that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. Consequently, Mr. Stone has waived his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to enforc e the First Plea Agreement.No. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

12 L EGAL F INANCIAL O BLIGATION S Mr. Stone argues that the trial court erred in imposing LFOs d ue to his status as an indigent defendant. 4 The State concedes Mr. Stone is indigent and the LFOs should be eliminated from the judgme nt and sentence

. RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) prohibits the imposition of a criminal filing fee on a defendant who is found to be indigent under RCW 10.01.160(3). Given the State’s agreement that Mr. Stone is indigent, the trial court is directed to strike the $2 00 criminal filing fee from the judgment and sentence.
P rior to July 1, 2023, imposition of a VPA was mandatory for any individual found guilty of a crime in superior court. Former RCW 7.68.035(1)(a) (2018). However, Engrossed Substitute H.B. 1169 , 68 th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2023), amended RCW 7.68.035 to provide, “ The court shall not impose the penalty assessment under this section if the court finds that the defendant, at the time of sentencing, is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3). ” L AWS OF 2023, ch . 449, § 1. Generally, when a statute is amended while a case is pending on direct appeal , the amendment will apply. State v. Ramirez , 191

4 Aside from the three LFOs discussed herein, the judgment and sentence included a DNA collection fee. While we do not raise issues sua sponte for the parties, DNA collection fees became waivable after July 1, 2023, following an amendment to RCW 43.43.7541. State v. Ellis , 27 Wn. App. 2d 1, 17, 530 P.3d 1048 (2023) (citing L AWS OF 2023, ch. 449, § 4).No. 38808

- 5

- III

State v. Stone

13 Wn.2d 732, 748

- 49, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). Because Mr. Stone is indigent, the trial court is directed to strike the $500 VPA from the judgment and sentence. Further, e ffective July 1, 2022, RCW 9.94A.703(2) no longer authorizes the imposition of community custody supervision fees. State v. Ellis , 27 Wn. App. 2d 1, 17, 530 P.3d 1048 (2023) (citing L AWS OF 2022, ch. 29, § 7). Because Mr. Stone’s case is pending on direct review, he receives the benefit of this amendment. The trial court is directed to strike the community custody supervision fee from the judgment and

sentence. CONCLUSION We deny Mr. Stone’s request to order the First Plea Agreement reinstated and remand for the trial court to strike the LFOs from the judgment and sentence. A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Cooney, J.
WE CONCUR:

Lawrence

- Berrey, C.J. Staab, J.