Opinion ID: 2538890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: n.j.'s understanding of the charge

Text: ¶ 37 A.N.J. also argues that it was error to deny his motion to withdraw his plea because his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not understand the nature of the charges against him. Due process requires that a guilty plea may be accepted only upon a showing the accused understands the nature of the charge and enters the plea intelligently and voluntarily. In re Pers. Restraint of Mendoza Montoya, 109 Wash.2d 270, 277, 744 P.2d 340 (1987); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Court rules prohibit the court from accepting a plea without first assuring the defendant understood the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea as required by CrR 4.2(d), among other things. A.N.J. was charged with first degree child molestation. Under the statute: A person is guilty of child molestation in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim. RCW 9A.44.083(1). `Sexual contact' means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire. RCW 9A.44.010(2). Gratification is not an element of the crime. It is part of the definition of sexual contact. Lorenz, 152 Wash.2d at 33, 93 P.3d 133. To satisfy the requirements of CrR 4.2(d) and with exceptions not relevant here, there must be sufficient evidence of a factual basis for the plea for a jury to conclude that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. Zhao, 157 Wash.2d at 198, 137 P.3d 835 (citing State v. Newton, 87 Wash.2d 363, 370, 552 P.2d 682 (1976)). We agree with the Court of Appeals' reasoning in S.M. and hold that in such cases, there must be evidence in the record that A.N.J. understood the law in relation to the facts and that he understood that mere contact with the genitals of another person was not sufficient for the crime charged. [17] ¶ 38 In the case before us, nothing in the colloquy with the judge shows that A.N.J. understood that the physical act was not itself sexual contact; that it had to be done for sexual gratification. RCW 9A.44.010(2) (`Sexual contact' means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire.) A child's game of Icky Poke-U certainly does not necessitate sexual gratification. In addition to the lack of any colloquy with the court, we also conclude that neither the charging documents, the plea document, or other evidence of record shows that A.N.J. understood the meaning of sexual contact. Because the record does not affirmatively disclose that A.N.J. understood that any contact he had with T.M. had to be for sexual gratification to constitute the crime with which he was charged, the court violated his right to due process when it accepted his plea and erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea. Cf. S.M., 100 Wash. App. at 409, 996 P.2d 1111.