IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

FELIPE LUIS JR.

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 38350-4-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, J. — Felipe Luis Jr. appeals his judgment and sentence, imposed as 

a result of his conviction for first degree manslaughter. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

On December 9, 2018, Felipe Luis Jr. was housed in the Yakima County jail’s

Norteño gang unit, along with Julian Gonzales, Deryk Donato, and Jacob Ozuna. 

At around 11:30 p.m., a corrections officer looked into the unit and saw an inmate 

on the ground, surrounded by other inmates. After calling for backup, several officers 

and medical staff entered the unit and found Mr. Ozuna on the floor unconscious, but 

still alive, and with extreme blunt force injuries. Officers observed pools of blood, as 

well as blood streaked on the walls, floor, and stairway, and on the hands of Mr. Luis, 

Mr. Donato, and Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Ozuna was transported to the hospital where he 

died shortly after.

FILED

DECEMBER 28, 2023

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

2

Description of the incident

The attack on Mr. Ozuna was captured by nonaudio surveillance cameras. Video 

footage revealed Mr. Ozuna on the second floor of the unit talking to another inmate. 

Mr. Luis, Mr. Donato, and Mr. Gonzales were downstairs and can be seen talking and 

shaking hands. Mr. Luis and the two other men then went upstairs, approached Mr. Ozuna 

from behind, and initiated an attack. For 12 minutes, the three men continuously punched,

kicked, and stomped on Mr. Ozuna. When Mr. Ozuna tried to get away, he was cornered 

and taken to the ground. When Mr. Ozuna appeared to lose consciousness, the beating 

did not stop; the three assailants kept punching and kicking Mr. Ozuna’s body, including 

his face. Mr. Luis, Mr. Donato, and Mr. Gonzales briefly took a break to drag Mr. Ozuna

along the hallway to the top of the stairs. When Mr. Ozuna started to move again, the

beating resumed until Mr. Ozuna became nonresponsive. The three men then dragged 

Mr. Ozuna by his feet down the stairs of the unit, causing him to hit his head on each 

individual stair. Once at the bottom of the stairs, Mr. Ozuna appeared to move his arm. 

In response, Mr. Luis and his companions repeatedly kicked Mr. Ozuna in the face until 

he stopped moving.

During the attack, another inmate, Lindsey Albright, took items from Mr. Ozuna’s 

cell and brought them back to his own cell. When officers later asked for the items, 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

3

Mr. Albright handed them, among other things, a document listing the “14 bonds” of the 

Norteño gang. 1 Rep. of Proc. (RP) (Nov. 12, 2020) at 125-26.

Mr. Ozuna’s autopsy revealed swelling around his head and face, bleeding in his 

nose and mouth, minor injuries to his hand and wrist, bruising on his neck, bruising on 

his chest, bruising and abrasions on his upper extremities, bruising on his right abdomen 

and pelvic areas, broken ribs, a liter of blood in his chest cavity, a bruise to his heart 

lining, contusions to his lungs, a hemorrhage near his kidneys, a one and one-half inch 

laceration on his scalp, and bruising and impact injuries on his skull. Although he had 

no skull fractures or major vessels torn, the beating caused Mr. Ozuna’s brain to move 

around inside his skull and swell to the point where it cut off its own blood supply. 

Mr. Ozuna’s official cause of death was rapid swelling of the brain resulting in 

respiratory failure. His official manner of death was homicide.

Charges

Mr. Luis, Mr. Donato, and Mr. Gonzales were each charged with Mr. Ozuna’s

murder. Their cases were joined for trial until the court granted a motion to sever.

The information filed against Mr. Luis charged two offenses. Count 1 charged 

aggravated first degree murder. One of the alleged aggravating circumstances was a gang 

aggravator under RCW 10.95.020(6). This aggravator alleged the murder was “committed 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

4

to obtain or maintain [Mr. Luis’s] membership or to advance [his] position in the 

hierarchy of an organization, association, or identifiable group.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 4.

Count 2 charged Mr. Luis with unaggravated first degree murder.1 This charge carried a 

gang enhancement that alleged the murder was committed “with intent to directly or 

indirectly cause any benefit, aggrandizement, gain, profit, or other advantage to or for 

[any] criminal street gang as defined [by] RCW 9.94A.030, its reputation, influence, or 

membership.” Id. at 5.

April 10, 2019 motion to continue

Mr. Luis was arraigned on January 2, 2019. On January 31, 2019, Mr. Luis 

appeared in court and waived his right to a speedy trial. Although there is no transcript 

of the January 31 hearing in the record on review, the parties agree the purpose of the 

continuance was to perform DNA testing.2 Mr. Luis signed a speedy trial waiver, 

agreeing to a trial date of May 6, 2019, with a readiness hearing set for April 10, 2019. 

 

1 Aggravated first degree murder is punished by a maximum penalty of life 

imprisonment without the possibility of parole. RCW 10.95.030. Unaggravated 

first degree murder is punished by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 

RCW 9A.32.030(2); RCW 9A.20.021(1)(a). An enhancement, if found by a jury, would

allow the court to impose a sentence above the standard range. RCW 9.94A.535(3).

2 According to the State, a recording for the January 31, 2019, hearing is not 

attainable. Br. of Resp’t at 7 n.3. 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

5

The parties appeared as scheduled on April 10. At the beginning of the hearing, 

counsel for the State explained the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory was not 

done with its DNA analysis and the process would not likely be complete until June. 

The defense voiced concern that the State had not identified what efforts had been made 

to obtain the DNA testing in a timely manner. The State’s attorney did not provide an 

explanation, but stated that if Mr. Luis “wants to go to trial . . . we can go to trial” so 

long as defense counsel represented he was ready. 1 RP (Apr. 10, 2019) at 9. Mr. Luis’s 

attorney did not say he was ready for trial, but he also did not specifically ask for a 

continuance. Rather, defense counsel said, “We’re not asking for [a continuance] at this 

time. We’re asking for the DNA [analysis]. And we’re asking for what efforts they’ve 

made to get the DNA [testing] done in a timely manner.” Id. at 9-10. Given defense 

counsel’s statements, the prosecutor asked for a continuance to allow for the completion 

of DNA testing. The court then found good cause for a continuance. The court asked 

defense counsel if there would be any prejudice to Mr. Luis by the continuance. Defense 

counsel stated, “No.” Id. at 11. The court then continued the trial date to August 12, 

2019.

3

 

3 During the hearing Mr. Luis astutely asked, “What is the DNA [testing] for when 

there’s a video?” Id. at 13. The trial court responded by advising Mr. Luis to confer with 

his counsel. 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

6

At a June 19, 2019, readiness hearing, the court was informed the DNA analysis

had been received. 

Brady 4 motion

On April 13, 2021, Mr. Luis filed a Brady motion for discovery. Mr. Luis 

specifically asked for any exculpatory or impeaching evidence related to Mr. Ozuna 

and his purported murder of Dario Alvarado. The State affirmed it had complied with 

the Brady requirements.

Motion in limine and Knapstad 5 motion

In a motion in limine, the State moved to admit gang association evidence to 

establish its theory for motive. The State asserted Mr. Ozuna’s killing was gang related. 

Evidence revealed Mr. Ozuna had been in custody for the alleged murder of Dario 

Alvarado on May 10, 2018. The State claimed both Mr. Ozuna and Mr. Alvarado were 

members of the Norteño gang. Expert testimony regarding the Norteños revealed they had 

a “constitution” called the “14 bonds.” 1 RP (Nov. 12, 2020) at 233. Norteño members 

must abide by the 14 bonds or risk being punished. The State theorized Mr. Ozuna had 

broken one of the bonds by killing Mr. Alvarado, a fellow Norteño, and thus needed to

 

4 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963).

5 State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346, 729 P.2d 48 (1986).
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

7

be disciplined. Testimony revealed Mr. Luis and his codefendants are also Norteño gang 

members, who, the State claimed, were ordered to carry out the discipline. According to 

the State’s evidence, if a Norteño receives no repercussions for violating a bond, one 

could assume the bond was approved.

Mr. Luis objected to the State’s motion, arguing the evidence failed to establish a 

nexus between Mr. Luis’s gang affiliation and the crime, and was prejudicial. Mr. Luis 

also joined his codefendants in filing a Knapstad motion to dismiss count 1, the 

aggravated murder charge, claiming the police testimony and gang expert testimony 

provided insufficient evidence, standing alone, to support an aggravating factor.

The trial court held a consolidated hearing on the two motions, ultimately denying 

Mr. Luis’s motion to dismiss count 1 and granting the State’s motion to admit gang 

evidence.

Trial

The case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury viewed the surveillance videos along 

with photographs depicting the scene and of Mr. Ozuna’s injuries. The jury also heard 

testimony from various law enforcement officers about gang membership and the State’s 

theory that Mr. Ozuna was killed for gang-related reasons. This testimony was consistent 

with what had been set forth in the motion in limine. 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

8

In the defense case, Mr. Luis presented testimony from employees of the Yakima 

County Department of Corrections who admitted Mr. Alvarado into custody in 2018. 

According to the witnesses, Mr. Alvarado identified himself as a “drop” during the intake 

process. 4 RP (Jun. 4, 2021) at 1762-63, 1768; Ex. 87. This meant he was no longer 

affiliated with a gang and should not be housed in a gang area. Id. Mr. Alvarado’s intake 

paperwork noted he had not been affiliated with a gang for approximately 10 years. 

Ex. 87.

Jury instructions, conviction and sentencing

The court granted a defense request for a jury instruction on manslaughter in 

the first degree, but denied an instruction based on manslaughter in the second degree, 

finding it was factually unwarranted. The jury convicted Mr. Luis of first degree 

manslaughter. It did not return a verdict on the gang enhancement.

Sentencing

The defense filed a motion requesting an exceptional sentence below the standard 

guideline range based largely on Mr. Luis’s youth. The court recognized it had discretion 

to grant the motion, but declined to do so. 

The court reasoned Mr. Luis was “more sophisticated than most 19-year olds.” 

RP (Jul. 15, 2021) at 42-43. Given the prolonged nature of the attack, the court found 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

9

Mr. Luis had not acted impetuously or without recognizing the consequences of his 

actions. The court did not find Mr. Luis’s actions were unduly influenced by his 

associates at the jail or by his difficult childhood. And the court noted Mr. Luis had 

already gone through the juvenile court system with no discernable progress toward 

rehabilitation. 

The court imposed the maximum of the standard range of 147 months. Mr. Luis 

timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

Gang evidence

Mr. Luis contends the trial court improperly allowed the State to present gang 

evidence under ER 404(b). According to Mr. Luis, the claim that Mr. Ozuna’s murder 

was gang related was entirely speculative. Furthermore, he argues the State’s theory that 

Mr. Ozuna was killed as punishment for killing another gang member was undercut by 

evidence that Mr. Alvarado was actually a dropout. We review a trial court’s ER 404(b) 

decision for abuse of discretion. State v. Embry, 171 Wn. App. 714, 731, 287 P.3d 648 

(2012). Even if a trial court abuses its discretion, reversal is unwarranted if the error was 

harmless. State v. Scott, 151 Wn. App. 520, 529, 213 P.3d 71 (2009). 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

10

We are not particularly swayed by the substance of Mr. Luis’s ER 404(b) claim. 

Although the evidence supporting the State’s theory of the case was circumstantial, it was 

significant. The State’s evidence raised a reasonable inference that Mr. Ozuna was killed 

in an orchestrated manner in accordance with the Norteño code of conduct. While the 

defense produced some evidence that Mr. Alvarado had dropped out of the Norteño gang, 

the evidence was not so strong that it eviscerated the State’s theory. Thus, we are inclined 

to agree with the trial court that the State was entitled to present its gang evidence under 

ER 404(b).

6

But regardless of any ER 404(b) error, Mr. Luis cannot get past the State’s claim 

of harmless error. “Evidentiary error can be harmless if, within reasonable probability, it 

did not materially affect the verdict.” Scott, 151 Wn. App. at 529 (citing State v. Zwicker,

105 Wn.2d 228, 243, 713 P.2d 1101 (1986)). Mr. Luis was acquitted of aggravated first 

degree murder, which was predicated on a gang allegation. And the jury did not issue a 

gang enhancement. Thus, there is no direct basis for concluding the gang evidence 

negatively impacted Mr. Luis’s case. 

 

6 A more thorough discussion of the ER 404(b) analysis is set forth in our decision 

in the companion case of State v. Donato, No. 38621-0-III (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 

2023) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/386210_unp.pdf.
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

11

Mr. Luis argues the ER 404(b) evidence was harmful because it portrayed him in a 

negative light. We are unpersuaded. For one thing, the jury necessarily knew Mr. Luis 

was in jail at the time of the offense; thus, it was unavoidable he would not be perceived 

as someone free from any criminal association. But more importantly, the video evidence 

documented Mr. Luis’s participation in a brutal, intentional beating that was prolonged 

and cruel. Given the strength of the video evidence, it is not reasonably probable the 

State’s gang evidence impacted the jury’s manslaughter verdict. 

Brady

Mr. Luis contends the state violated its Brady obligation to disclose exculpatory 

evidence when it failed to produce the jail records establishing Mr. Alvarado’s gang drop

out status. Our review is de novo. State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 894, 259 P.3d 

158 (2011). Relief under Brady requires a showing of prejudice. In re Pers. Restraint of 

Stenson, 174 Wn.2d 474, 486-87, 276 P.3d 286 (2012). In this context, prejudice turns on 

whether it is reasonably probable that, with proper disclosure, the result of the proceeding 

would have been different. In re Pers. Restraint of Mulamba, 199 Wn.2d 488, 498, 508 

P.3d 645 (2022).

Mr. Luis’s Brady claim fails for lack of prejudice. Regardless of whether the 

State should have produced information about Mr. Alvarado before trial, there is not a 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

12

reasonable probability that early disclosure would have yielded a different result. Mr. Luis 

had the information about Mr. Alvarado at trial and was able to use it in his case-in-chief.

Perhaps based on Mr. Luis’s presentation of Mr. Alvarado’s gang drop status, the jury did 

not return any gang related verdicts.

Mr. Luis recognizes that he had the Alvarado information at trial and that the jury 

did not issue a gang-related verdict; nevertheless, he insists there was prejudice because 

earlier disclosure would have prevented the trial court from allowing the presentation of 

gang evidence at trial. We reject Mr. Luis’s analysis. Even if the information regarding 

Mr. Alvarado would have changed the trial court’s decision to admit gang evidence,7

the introduction of the gang evidence did not prejudice the outcome of Mr. Luis’s case. 

Lesser-included offense jury instruction

Mr. Luis challenges the trial court’s refusal to instruct the theory on second degree 

manslaughter. A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense jury instruction when 

 

7 This proposition is dubious. We disagree with Mr. Luis’s argument that the 

information about Mr. Alvarado was “thoroughly impeaching.” Am. Appellant’s Br. at 

32-33. Mr. Alvarado’s purported claim during 2018 that he had not been involved with 

gangs for 10 years was impeached by evidence demonstrating his gang involvement in 

2011, 2014, and 2015. See 4 RP (Jun. 2, 2021) at 1523-28, 1535-46, 1552-53. 

Additionally, at the time Mr. Alvarado was booked into jail in April 2018, his listed 

property included red shoes and a red shirt. 4 RP (Jun. 4, 2021) 1783. Red is a color 

association with the Norteños. 3 RP (Jun. 2, 2021) 1453, 4 RP (Jun. 4, 2021) 1783. There 

was no evidence at trial indicating Norteños members viewed Mr. Alvarado as a dropout.
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

13

two prongs are met: (1) under the legal prong, each element of the lesser offense must be 

a necessary element of the charged offense, see RCW 10.61.006, and (2) under the factual 

prong, the evidence must support an inference that only the lesser crime was committed. 

State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48, 584 P.2d 382 (1978).

The parties agree that, under the legal prong of the analysis, second degree 

manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of the charged crimes of aggravated first degree 

premeditated murder and first degree premeditated murder. 

The disagreement pertains to the factual prong. The factual prong is satisfied if 

the facts of the case “raise a possible inference that the defendant committed the lesser 

offense but did not commit the charged offense.” State v. Henderson, 180 Wn. App. 138,

144, 321 P.3d 298 (2014), aff’d, 182 Wn.2d 734, 344 P.3d 1207 (2015). If viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the defense, “‘the evidence would permit a jury 

to rationally find a defendant guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater, 

a lesser included offense instruction should be given.’” Id. (quoting State v. Berlin, 133 

Wn.2d 541, 551, 947 P.2d 700 (1997)). We review a trial court’s decision regarding 

whether to issue a lesser-included instruction under the factual prong for abuse of 

discretion. Id.
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

14

The difference between the charged crimes of premeditated murder and the 

lesser-included offense of second degree manslaughter pertains to the defendant’s 

mental state. Premeditated murder requires proof of intent to kill. RCW 9A.32.030(1)(a); 

see also RCW 10.95.020(6). In contrast, second degree manslaughter requires only that 

the defendant acted with criminal negligence. RCW 9A.32.070(1). In this context, a 

person acts with criminal negligence when they “fail[] to be aware of a substantial risk 

that a homicide may occur.” Henderson, 180 Wn. App. at 149.

8

The video evidence dooms Mr. Luis’s theory of criminal negligence. The video 

shows the attack against Mr. Ozuna was deliberate, lengthy, and brutal. Mr. Luis and 

his associates repeatedly punched and kicked Mr. Ozuna to the point where Mr. Ozuna 

became unconscious. When Mr. Ozuna showed any sign of movement, the assault 

resumed until Mr. Ozuna was completely nonresponsive. Given the egregious

circumstances documented in the video, no rational jury could find Mr. Luis failed to 

be aware of a substantial risk Mr. Ozuna would die from the attack. See Henderson, 

180 Wn. App. at 149. Rather, the jury “must necessarily” have at least found “a conscious 

disregard of a substantial risk of homicide,” consistent with the conviction for first degree 

 

8 In contrast, first degree manslaughter requires a mental state of recklessness. 

State v. Warden, 133 Wn.2d 559, 563, 947 P.2d 708 (1997).
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

15

manslaughter. Id. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the lesserincluded instruction for second degree manslaughter.

Trial continuance 

Mr. Luis argues the trial court violated his speedy trial rights under CrR 3.3 when 

it granted a continuance in order to allow the State time to complete DNA testing. Under 

the speedy trial rule, the time for trial may be extended based on a party’s motion for 

continuance. CrR 3.3(f)(2). We review a trial court’s decision on whether to grant a 

continuance for abuse of discretion. State v. Denton, 23 Wn. App. 2d 437, 449, 516 P.3d 

422 (2022). A trial court abuses its discretion if it continues a trial over the defendant’s 

objection based on general concerns of congestion or backlogs. Id. at 451-52.

9 Violation 

of the speedy trial rule requires dismissal with prejudice. CrR 3.3(h). 

While founded on the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the time for trial rule 

set by CrR 3.3 “is not of constitutional magnitude.” State v. White, 94 Wn.2d 498, 501, 

617 P.2d 998 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Walker, 199 Wn.2d 796,

 

9 Congestion or backlogs in the courts, prosecuting attorney’s office, or crime 

labs will justify a continuance over the defendant’s objection only in exceptional 

circumstances. Id. at 450. If the State believes exceptional circumstances justify a 

continuance over the defendant’s objection it must specify the nature of the exceptional 

circumstances, what steps have been taken to address the congestion or backlog, and 

“a reasonable time frame within which the case can be brought to trial.” Id.
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

16

805-06, 513 P.3d 111 (2022). Thus, error preservation is critical. See RAP 2.5(a). In order 

to preserve a rule-based speedy trial argument for appeal, a defendant must assert a timely 

objection. State v. MacNeven, 173 Wn. App. 265, 268-69, 293 P.3d 1241 (2013). 

Preserving a speedy trial objection allows the court to address speedy trial problems by 

“by resetting the trial date within the timely trial period or by determining whether there 

was good cause for a continuance.” Id. at 269. When a defendant objects to the basis 

for a continuance, not merely the date set, a written objection is not required under 

CrR 3.3(d)(3). Denton, 23 Wn. App. 2d at 460 n.10. Nevertheless, an objection is still 

required. Id.

Here, Mr. Luis failed to articulate a valid objection to the court’s decision to 

grant the State’s continuance motion. Mr. Luis was given the opportunity to proceed to 

trial as scheduled on May 6, 2019, without the DNA evidence. Yet he did not seize it. 

He instead asserted he wanted the DNA evidence. Although Mr. Luis’s attorney said he 

was not asking for a continuance and he expressed dissatisfaction with the State’s failure 

to explain the delay with the crime lab, nothing in the record could be construed as 

indicating Mr. Luis wished to proceed to trial on May 6.

This case contrasts with Denton where the defendant stated he objected to the 

State’s continuance and wanted to go to trial without the DNA evidence that formed 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

17

the basis for the State’s continuance request. Denton, 23 Wn. App. 2d at 444. Although 

Mr. Luis did personally question the need for DNA evidence during his April 10 hearing, 

he never asserted that he wished to go to trial in May or that he wanted to go to trial 

without the DNA evidence. Furthermore, when it comes to a speedy trial objection, a 

defendant is bound by the representations of their attorney. Id. at 448-49.

Based on the unique circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding good cause for a continuance. 

Sentencing

Mr. Luis challenges his standard range sentence, arguing the trial court failed to 

meaningfully consider an exceptional sentence downward based on the mitigating 

circumstances of youth. We disagree.

Appeals of standard range sentences are generally prohibited. RCW 9.94A.585(1). 

When a defendant challenges the denial of an exceptional sentence downward, appellate 

review turns on proof of legal error, such as a categorical refusal to exercise discretion 

or the mistaken belief of a lack of discretion to impose a nonguideline sentence. State v. 

McFarland, 189 Wn.2d 47, 56, 399 P.3d 1106 (2017); State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333, 

342, 111 P.3d 1183 (2005).

We discern no legal error in the trial court’s denial of Mr. Luis’s request for an 
No. 38350-4-III

State v. Luis

18

exceptional sentence downward. The court recognized its authority to impose an 

exceptional sentence based on Mr. Luis’s youth. See State v. O’Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680, 

689, 358 P.3d 359 (2015).10 It carefully reviewed Mr. Luis’s individual circumstances 

and concluded Mr. Luis’s culpability was not mitigated by his young age or immaturity. 

Mr. Luis has not shown any legal error warranting review of the trial court’s standard 

range sentence.

CONCLUSION

The judgment and sentence is affirmed.

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.

_________________________________

Pennell, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________

Staab, J. Cooney, J.

 

10 Because Mr. Luis was not a juvenile at the time of his offense, the court 

was not required to consider the mitigating qualities of youth as set forth in State v. 

Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1, 391 P.3d 409 (2017).