LuJRi'Or APPEALS Hi'-- STATE OF V/ASHIKGTOP 

### 20fifAPR 21 AHI|:t»8

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. DAVID SIONA SOLOMONA, Appellant. No. 70107-0-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: April 21, 2014 Leach, J. — David Solomona pleaded guilty to three counts of domestic violence felony violation of a court order and one count of domestic violence witness tampering. At his sentencing hearing, Solomona moved pro se to 

### withdraw hisguilty plea and dismiss hiscase, alleging that he receivedineffective assistance when his counsel failed to interview the State's witnesses. The trial court denied both motions. In this appeal, Solomona contends that the court violated his constitutionalright to counsel by refusing to appoint new counsel to 

### investigate hisclaim ofineffective assistance. He also raises several new issues in a statement of additional grounds. Because no constitutional violation occurred, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Solomona's motions, and the additional issues he raises have no merit, we affirm. Background David Solomona was married to Carey Solomona, and they had two 

### children together. Solomona was twice convicted of violating a court orderNo. 70107-0-1/2 

### prohibiting him from having any contact with Carey. In May 2011, the State charged David Solomona with eightcounts ofdomestic violence felony violation of a court order and one count of tampering with a witness. Ajury found 

### Solomonaguiltyofall nine counts. Solomonaappealed on asingleissuethatthe State conceded: that the trial courtimproperly denied Solomona's prose request 

### to reopen and testify after both parties had rested. This court reversed and remandedfor a newtrial. In February 2013, Solomona's newtrial began. In a 

### subsequent plea agreement, Solomona pleaded guilty to three counts of domestic violence felony violation of a court order and one count ofdomestic violence witness tampering. 

### At sentencing on February 15, 2013, Solomona filed two motions pro se. 

### Alleging ineffective assistance because counsel failed to interview the State's witnesses, he moved towithdraw his guilty plea and todismiss his case. The trial court denied Solomona's motions. Solomona appeals, also raising several

new issues in a statement of additional grounds. Analysis 

### Solomona contends thatby refusing toappoint new counsel toinvestigate his ineffective assistance claim, the trial court violated his constitutional right to 

### counsel. He claims his attorney "refused to assisthim in presenting themotion to 

### withdrawthe guilty plea" and helped the State by asserting his own effectiveness in the face ofMr. Solomona's contention otherwise. This left Mr. Solomona pro se, without the assistance of counsel.

-2-No. 70107-0-1/3

Our federal and state constitutions each guarantee a defendant the right 

### to counsel at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution.1 Asentencing hearing is a critical stage.2 We review a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a 

### guilty pleafor an abuse ofdiscretion.3 Acourt abuses its discretion ifit bases its decision on untenable or manifestly unreasonable grounds.4 Atrial court must determine that a defendant made a plea of guilty "voluntarily, competently and with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the 

### plea."5 The court mustallow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea "whenever it 

### appears that the withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice."6 A manifest injustice may arise where a defendant received ineffective assistance of 

### counsel.7 To establish a claim ofineffective assistance, Solomona must show (1) that his counsel's conduct was deficient, i.e., that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced him: that there is a reasonable possibility that but for counsel's deficient 

### performance, the outcome ofhis trial would have been different.8 "There is a 1U.S.Const, amends. VI &XIV; Wash. Const, art. I, § 22; CrR3.1(b)(2); Gideon v. Wainriqht. 372 U.S. 335, 344-45, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963); State v. Templeton, 148 Wn.2d 193, 208-09, 59 P.3d 632 (2002); State ex. rel. Juckett v. Evergreen Dist. Court. 100 Wn.2d 824, 828, 675 P.2d 599 (1984); State v. Harell, 80 Wn. App. 802, 804, 911 P.2d 1034 (1996). 2 State v. Evervbodvtalksabout, 161 Wn.2d 702, 709, 166 P.3d 693 (2007).

### 3State v. Jamison. 105Wn. App. 572, 589-90, 20 P.3d 1010(2001). 4Jamison, 105Wn. App. at 590. 

### 5CrR4.2(d). 6CrR4.2(f). 7State v. Wakefield. 130 Wn.2d 464, 472, 925 P.2d 183 (1996). 8 State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130, 101 P.3d 80 (2004) (citing State v. Thomas. 109 Wn.2d 222, 225-26, 743 P.2d 816 (1987)).No. 70107-0-1/4

»g strong presumption that defense counsel's conduct is not deficient. Failure on 

### eitherprong ofthe testdefeats anineffective assistance ofcounsel claim.10 In his pro se motions, Solomona alleged that his counsel was ineffective for not interviewing the State's witnesses. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel presented the motions and told the court, It sounds like the basis and the basis that's included in the motions is my not interviewing the State's witnesses in this case. Urn, you know, Ican certainly let the Court know, and the Court's well aware that these are based largely on phone calls from the jail. Uh, the two civilian witnesses would have been Mr. Solomona's ex-wife's parents, who were coming from Montana. Uh, there was a prior trial. There were trial transcripts, that kind of thing. And so Ididn't feel as though itwas necessary to interview those witnesses. Defense acknowledged the court's authority to appoint another attorney to investigate Solomona's claim ofineffective assistance but opined that itwould be more efficient to "allow[ ] Mr. Solomona to fileand perhaps letthe Court know his views on the motions himself." The State requested that sentencing proceed without delay. The courtthen addressed Solomona: Iaccepted your plea and findthat everything was done, uh, in pure accordance with court rules. And I do not see that there is any indicia of a manifest injustice, which is the only grounds by which we would accept your withdrawal of a guilty plea. So that motion has been denied and I'mready to move forward with sentencing. 

### Solomona analogizes his caseto State v. Harell.11 There, the defendant had to proceed prose at his plea withdrawal hearing after his counsel declined to 9 Reichenbach. 153 Wn.2d at 130 (citing State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)). 10 Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 

### " 80Wn. App. 802, 911 P.2d 1034(1996).No. 70107-0-1/5
assist him. This court held that Harellwas denied his right to counsel at a critical 

## stage and remanded for a rehearing with new counsel.12 But Harell is distinguishable. In that case, thetrial court granted a hearing on the motion to 

### withdraw, where defense counsel affirmatively declined to assist Harell.13 Defense counsel then testified as a State's witness at the hearing, leaving Harell 

### unrepresented.14 Here, Solomona's counsel did not decline to assist him. He 

### presented Solomona's motions, noting they were pro se. Though heexpressed his opinion that interviewing the State's witnesses would not have advanced Solomona's defense, counsel noted the court's authority to appoint new counsel 

### to investigate Solomona's claims. Counsel then asked the court to waive nonmandatory fines and fees and clarified the terms of the no-contact order so that Solomona could maintain visitation with his children. This was not 

### "abandonment" or "anantagonistic andadversarial position to hisclient." Defense counsel's decision not to interview the State's witnesses was 

### reasonable. The chargeswere based onrecorded phone calls from thejail, and the defensehad transcripts ofthewitnesses' testimonyfrom Solomona'sfirsttrial 

### on the samecharges. NordoesSolomonaestablish prejudice, eitherby showing thatbutfor his attorney's ineffectiveness, hewould have demanded atrial, orby 

### showing that interviews with the State's witnesses would have resulted in a
different outcome. 12 Harell. 80 Wn. App. at 805. 13 Harell. 80 Wn. App. at 803. 14 Harell. 80 Wn. App. at 805.

-5-No. 70107-0-1/6 

### "[A] trial court is notrequired to waste valuable court time onfrivolous or 

### unjustified CrR 4.2 motions."15 Solomona does not show a manifest injustice requiring thewithdrawal of hisguilty plea underCrR4.2(f). Because Solomona's 

### allegations do not support an assignment of new counsel to investigate his ineffective assistance claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motions to withdraw his guiltyplea and dismiss his case. In a statement of additional grounds, Solomona raises four new issues. 

### First, he alleges that the record does notinclude sufficientevidence to prove the 

### two priorconvictions thatraised his currentcharges tofelonies andincreased his offender score. Second, he contends that the prosecutor "[ajbused his power 

### when attempting to induce the Petitioner to waive his [ajppeal rights on an unrelated case." Third, he accuses Detective Cynthia Sampson of "gross police 

### misconduct" for notpreventing Solomonafrom violating the no-contact orderwith 

### repeated phone calls toCareyfromjail butinstead "letting theviolations stack up for [sjentencing entrapment and manipulation purposes." Finally, Solomona 

### alleges that his counsel was ineffective for not investigating whether Carey "felt induced to nottestify" in his harassmenttrial, maintaining that this would have affected his decision whetherto go to trial oraccept a plea offer. 

### For sentencing purposes, the State must establish the defendant's 

### criminal history by a preponderance ofthe evidence.16 The best evidence ofa

15 State v. Davis. 125 Wn. App. 59, 68, 104P.3d 11 (2004). 16 State v. Mendoza. 165 Wn.2d 913, 928-29, 205 P.3d 113 (2009).No. 70107-0-1/7 

### prior conviction will "generally" be a certified copy of the judgment and sentence.17 And a prosecutor's unsupported criminal history summary, without 

## more, will not establish the existence and validity of prior convictions.18 But certified copies ofcourt dockets, especially when presented together with other 

### government documents, such as a driver's license, are, "at the very least, 

### minimallyreliable" to prove apriorconviction.19 Here, the prosecutorpresenteda copy ofthecourt dockets, which contained the case number, defendant's name and identifying information, charges, date, statutorycitation, and disposition. The 

### prosecutor also offered a certified copy of Solomona's driver's license. This evidence had "some 'minimum indicia ofreliability'" sufficient to meet the State's burden.20 The trial court did not err in finding this evidence sufficientto establish 

### the existence and validity of Solomona's prior convictions for sentencing

purposes. 

### Solomona next alleges prosecutorial misconduct: "vindictive inducement 

### tactics during negotiations." Solomona refers tothe prosecutor's offerto charge Solomonawith onlytwo counts in this caseifSolomonawithdrew his appeal ofa 

### separate robbery conviction.21 Solomona contends that by attempting to induce him to drop his constitutional right of appeal on an unrelated conviction, the

17 Mendoza. 165 Wn.2d at 930. 18 State v. Hunlev. 175Wn.2d 901, 905, 287 P.3d 584(2012). 19 State v. Chandler. 158Wn.App. 1, 7, 240 P.3d 159 (2010). 

### 20 In re Pers. Restraint ofAdolph. 170 Wn.2d 556, 569, 243 P.3d 540 

### (2010) (quoting Statev. Ford. 137Wn.2d472, 480-81, 973 P.2d452 (1999)). 21 The second option, which Solomona accepted, was to plead guilty to fourcounts and "take his chances" on the robbery appeal.No. 70107-0-1/8
prosecutor "abused his authority" and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. We disagree. All plea bargaining involves a defendant's waiver of certain 

### constitutional rights, and the right of appeal can be one of the rights waived.22 Solomona does not establish any misconduct by the prosecutor. Solomona next argues that Detective Cynthia Sampson committed "gross police misconduct" and unlawful "[sjentencing entrapment" by allowing him to make numerous calls to Carey from jail, knowing that each call was a violation of 

### the no-contact order.23 This argument lacks merit. "The defense ofentrapment is not established by a showing only that law enforcement officials merely afforded the actor an opportunity to commit a crime," even in cases where the officials provided the opportunity through a ruse such as an undercover 

### operation.24 Here there was no ruse, and Solomona was not"lured orinduced" to commit crimes he otherwise had no intention to commit.25 His claim fails. Finally, Solomona contends that defense counsel was ineffective for not interviewing Carey to ask her "if she felt any inducement" to decline to testify in Solomona's harassment trial. This claim also lacks merit. Solomona does not show deficiency or prejudice from counsel's decision not to interview Carey.

22 State v. Lee. 132 Wn.2d 498, 506, 939 P.2d 1223 (1997); State v. Perkins. 108 Wn.2d 212, 217, 737 P.2d 250 (1987). 

### 53 Solomona made a total of 143 calls to Carey in violation of the court order. 24 State v. Youde. 174 Wn.App. 873, 886, 301 P.3d 479 (2013). 

### 25 Youde. 174Wn. App. at 885.

-8-No. 70107-0-1/9

Conclusion Because no violation of Solomona's constitutional right to counsel occurred, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Solomona's motions to withdraw his guilty plea, and the challenges Solomona raises in his statement ofadditional grounds lack merit, we affirm.

WE CONCUR: