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

Heading: n.j.

Text: ¶ 6 On April 7, 2004, Deputy Matney received a report that five-year-old T.M. of Moses Lake had been sexually molested by another child. On May 3, Deputy Matney interviewed T.M., who reported that his neighbor, A.N.J., had touched him and his four-year-old sister over and under [their] clothing. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1, 21-23. ¶ 7 Eleven days later, the deputy called A.N.J.'s parents. Apparently, after speaking with an unnamed attorney, A.N.J.'s parents agreed to have their son talk to the police. According to A.N.J., five-year-old T.M. had attempted to instigate a game of Icky Poke-U, which, it seems, involves putting one's hands down another's pants. A.N.J. told the deputy he had declined to play and had touched neither child. The deputy noted in his report that he did not believe A.N.J. because he stopped making eye contact and started crying. ¶ 8 A.N.J. was charged with one count of first degree child molestation under RCW 9A.44.083 and assigned a public defender, Douglas Anderson. Anderson had contracted with Grant County to provide public defender services in juvenile cases, among other things, for a flat fee. A 2000 version of the contract set the fee at $162,000 per year. Under the contract, Anderson was required to pay for expert witnesses, investigators and other service necessary to an adequate... defense ... except for extraordinary cases. Ex. 8, at 5. [5] Additionally, if conflict counsel was required, it was Anderson's responsibility to notify the court and pay for that counsel out of his flat fee. Under recent revisions of the rules governing attorneys' professional conduct, it is now unethical for an attorney to sign a public defender contract to deliver public defense if the contract requires the attorney to pay for conflict counsel, expert witness, or investigative costs out of a lump fee. RPC 1.8(m). The year he represented A.N.J., Anderson represented 263 clients under this contract. Additionally, he carried an average of 30-40 active dependency cases at any one time, and about another 200 cases. Anderson's only assistant was his wife, who had been home with a sick child at the time he was representing A.N.J. ¶ 9 Anderson filed a notice of appearance on behalf of A.N.J. on July 29, 2004. He met with his 12-year-old client and his client's parents once before the August 2, 2004, arraignment for about five minutes, and then briefly before the arraignment itself. Client and lawyer did not meet again before the pretrial conference on September 14, 2004, though A.N.J.'s father called in weekly. Anderson did little if any investigation or research into the case. Despite being given the names of witnesses who might have been able to testify that the victim had been abused by others, which could have provided an alternative explanation for T.M.'s report and knowledge, Anderson called these witnesses only once, did not reach them, and did not follow up. He never spoke to the investigating officer. He made no requests for discovery and filed no motions. At the pretrial conference, Anderson spent 5 to 10 minutes with A.N.J. and his parents. ¶ 10 The day after the pretrial conference, the State offered a deal. If A.N.J. would plead guilty to one count of first degree child molestation, the State would recommend a special sex offender disposition alternative program (SSODA). If A.N.J. successfully finished treatment, the charge would be reduced to second degree child molestation. Anderson believed the State's offer was a good deal and would have the added benefit to A.N.J. that he would not be charged with molesting T.M.'s younger sister. ¶ 11 On September 17, 2004, Anderson met with A.N.J.'s family to discuss the plea offer. Before this meeting, the evidence suggests Anderson had met with A.N.J. three times and spent somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes with them. A.N.J.'s parents estimated 5 to 10 minutes. CP at 119 (5 minutes), 122, 193 (10-20 minutes); Hr'g Tr. (Sept. 14, 2004) (5 minutes). At first, Anderson testified that he had a copy of the plea agreement at the September 17 meeting but later admitted that he did not. [6] Anderson testified that he spent well over a half hour discussing the plea offer. A.N.J.'s parents estimated it was between 5 and 10 minutes. CP at 32, 177. On September 22, just before the plea hearing, A.N.J. saw the plea documents for the first time. Anderson estimated that he saw A.N.J. for only about 5 minutes before the plea hearing. Anderson did not read the entire statement on plea to A.N.J.; instead he just explained a couple of brief things regarding registering as a sex offender and the fact that [A.N.J.] could not own a firearm or have contact with the victim. CP at 35. The statement on the guilty plea recites the elements of the crime and gives the standard range sentence as 15-36 weeks. It also says that A.N.J. must register as a sex offender, though it says nothing about whether there is, or is not, the possibility of having the registration requirement removed. The box next to school notification is not checked. ¶ 12 Based on Anderson's testimony as a whole, it appears that he spent as little as 55 minutes with A.N.J. before the plea hearing, did no independent investigation, did not carefully review the plea agreement, and consulted with no experts. [7] Based upon the testimony of A.N.J.'s parents, Anderson spent between 35 and 40 minutes with their son before the plea. ¶ 13 A.N.J. did not make a statement at his plea hearing. The judge reviewed the record and found that there was a factual basis to accept the plea. Before accepting the plea, the judge asked A.N.J. if his attorney had read him the statement, whether he understood it, whether he understood that he could serve up to 36 weeks, not attend the same school as the victim, have to pay a fine, and register as a sex offender. A.N.J. said that he did. A.N.J. also said he had no questions. The judge did not review the elements of the crime with A.N.J. on the record. The trial judge checked a box on the form that said The Respondent asserted that ... [t]he respondent's lawyer has previously read to [him] the entire statement above and that [he] understood it in full. CP at 11. ¶ 14 In November 2004, A.N.J. hired a new lawyer and within five weeks moved to withdraw his guilty plea. His parents submitted declarations in support stating that Anderson had not contacted any of the witnesses they supplied, did not return their calls, and met with them only briefly. His mother also said that she specifically asked Mr. Anderson when this charge would be dropped from [A.N.J.'s] record. According to A.N.J.'s mother, Anderson said, `the laws change every year and I'll have to look into it, but it can be done either when [A.N.J.] turns eighteen (18) or twenty-one (21).' CP at 29; see also CP at 32 (father's similar declaration). Both parents testified they were not told that A.N.J.'s school would be informed or what the SSODA would entail. A.N.J. did not testify or submit a declaration. Anderson also initially submitted a declaration in support of A.N.J.'s motion. He acknowledged he had done no investigation, that he had not read the plea agreement to A.N.J. or had him do so, and that he had told A.N.J.'s parents that he believed the convictions could be removed from A.N.J.'s record when he turned 18 or 21. [8] ¶ 15 However, in a subsequent declaration and at the hearing on A.N.J.'s motion to withdraw his plea, Anderson waffled on his signed declaration. A.N.J. unsuccessfully moved to limit Anderson's testimony on the ground that he had not generally waived attorney/client privilege. The judge concluded that A.N.J. had completely waived attorney/client confidentiality by moving to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. [9] During the hearing, Anderson acknowledged that he probably did not review the mandatory minimum sentence with A.N.J., or the requirement that he inform his school that he was a sex offender. Anderson also acknowledged that he did not talk to the investigating officers himself and had not used an investigator during the contract year. However, he denied misleading A.N.J. about the consequences of the plea. [10] ¶ 16 A.N.J. also assembled experts. Dr. Tasha Boychuk-Spears, an expert in interviewing children, submitted a declaration stating that the police detective's investigation was insufficient in a variety of ways, mostly because it did not take into account the suggestibility of young children. CP at 39. Seattle University Law Professor John A. Strait also submitted a declaration and testified pro bono as an expert witness in support of allowing A.N.J. to withdraw his plea. Professor Strait flatly concluded that Anderson's representation did not meet Sixth Amendment standards because, among other things, he did not do an adequate investigation, did not develop a rapport with A.N.J. individually, and did not spend sufficient time. ¶ 17 The court was not impressed. The trial judge did not explicitly reach in his ruling whether A.N.J. had been misinformed that the child molestation conviction could ever be stricken from his record. He found that A.N.J. had acknowledged the facts. CP at 209 (It's my finding that the parents as well as the child accepted the position, the factual position of the State.). The judge did find that A.N.J. was not informed that he would be shadowed while at school, but concluded that was a collateral consequence that did not justify withdrawing a plea. He also explicitly found that A.N.J. had not shown ineffective assistance of counsel. At sentencing, which took place on August 29, 2006, the prosecutor did not recommend a SSODA, on the ground that [A.N.J.] has not evidenced amenability to that type of alternative disposition. Transcript of Proceedings (Tr.) (July 22, 2005 & Aug. 29, 2006) at 18. The record suggests that A.N.J. had declined to be evaluated for SSODA pending final resolution on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nearly two years after his plea, A.N.J. was sentenced to 15-36 weeks in custody, required to undergo HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing, and to register as a sex offender. The Court of Appeals affirmed.