Court Opinion

ID: 9898022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:52.540603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:19.493679
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

                                                                      FILED
                                                                   MARCH 16, 2023
                                                             In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                            WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

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

       STATE OF WASHINGTON,                           )         No. 38325-3-III
                                                      )
                            Respondent,               )
                                                      )
                     v.                               )         PUBLISHED OPINION
                                                      )
       D.G.A.,†                                       )
                                                      )
                            Appellant.                )

              LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — D.G.A. appeals a juvenile court disposition order more

       than 20 years after it was entered. We grant the State’s motion to modify the

       commissioner’s ruling of September 24, 2021, and dismiss this appeal.

                                                 FACTS

              On January 22, 1999, D.G.A., then a juvenile, was charged with trafficking in

       stolen property in the first degree, a class B felony. He pleaded guilty on February 17,

       1999. His plea was based on the State’s promise that if he did not commit any new

       criminal offenses within 12 months, the State would dismiss the charge.

               † To protect the privacy interests of D.G.A., we use his initials throughout this
       opinion. Gen. Ord. for Ct. of Appeals, In re Changes to Case Title (Wash. Ct. App.
       Aug. 22, 2018) (effective September 1, 2018),
       http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38325-3-III
       State v. D.G.A.

              D.G.A.’s plea of guilty acknowledged that he was giving up the right to appeal a

       finding of guilt after trial. It also stated that if the court sentenced him within the

       standard range, “no one can appeal the sentence.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 8. The court

       accepted D.G.A.’s plea of guilty and found that it was “knowingly, intelligently, and

       voluntarily made.” CP at 9.

              D.G.A. apparently did not comply with the condition that he not commit any new

       criminal offenses, because on September 22, 1999, the court entered an order of

       disposition. It did not order any detention, community supervision, community service, or

       a fine. It ordered a $100 assessment to be converted to 17 hours of community service

       and required D.G.A. to pay $932 in restitution.

              On July 15, 2021, D.G.A. filed a notice of appeal, more than 20 years after his

       adjudication. By clerk’s letter, we notified the parties of this court’s motion to dismiss

       for failure to timely file the notice of appeal. Letter from Tristen Worthen, Clerk of

       Court, Wash. Ct. of Appeals Div. III, State v. D.G.A., No. 38324-5-III1 (Wash. Ct. App.

       Aug. 6, 2021). The letter set the matter for consideration on our commissioner’s docket

              1
               This case was initially consolidated with D.G.A.’s appeal of a 2000 adjudication
       under cause number 38324-5-III. We severed the cases upon D.G.A.’s motion. See Ord.
       Granting Mot. to Sever, State v. D.G.A., No. 38325-3-III (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2022).

                                                      2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38325-3-III
       State v. D.G.A.

       and invited D.G.A. and the State to file memoranda. Neither party filed a memorandum

       or otherwise responded.

              Our commissioner reviewed the record before it, which was limited to D.G.A.’s

       notice of appeal, order of indigency, order of disposition, and an order authorizing

       D.G.A.’s release pending trial. See Notice of Appeal to Ct. of Appeals Div. Three, State

       v. D.G.A., No. 38325-3-III (Wash. Ct. App. July 15, 2021). The commissioner’s ruling

       concluded the State had not met its burden to show that D.G.A. knowingly, intelligently,

       and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to appeal and therefore extraordinary

       circumstances existed under RAP 18.8(b) to support extending the period for filing the

       notice of appeal. Comm’r’s Ruling, State v. D.G.A., No. 38324-5-III (Wash. Ct. App.

       Sept. 24, 2021). The State moved to modify the commissioner’s ruling, and we deferred

       the decision to a panel to be determined at the time set for a determination of the case on

       the merits. Ord. on Mot. to Modify Comm’r’s Ruling, State v. D.G.A., No. 38324-5-III

       (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2021).

                                               ANALYSIS

              In its motion to modify, the State argues the commissioner erred by granting

       D.G.A. an extension of time to file this appeal. Based on our present record, which was

                                                    3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38325-3-III
       State v. D.G.A.

       not available to our commissioner, we agree. For the reasons explained below, we grant

       the State’s motion to modify and dismiss this appeal as untimely.

              Our state constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to appeal in all

       cases. WASH. CONST., art. I, § 22. Even a defendant who pleads guilty retains a limited

       right to appeal. State v. Cross, 156 Wn.2d 580, 621, 132 P.3d 80 (2006), abrogated on

       other grounds by State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1, 427 P.3d 621 (2018). A defendant can

       waive the right to appeal, but the State must prove the waiver was knowing, intelligent,

       and voluntary. State v. Sweet, 90 Wn.2d 282, 286, 581 P.2d 579 (1978). “[A]n

       involuntary forfeiture of the right to a criminal appeal is never valid.” State v. Kells,

       134 Wn.2d 309, 313, 949 P.2d 818 (1998). A criminal appeal may not be dismissed as

       untimely unless the State demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and

       voluntarily abandoned their appeal right. Id. A hearing may be necessary to determine

       whether a defendant effectively waived their right to appeal. Id. at 315; State v. Tomal,

       133 Wn.2d 985, 991, 948 P.2d 833 (1997).

              A voluntary guilty plea, however, acts as a waiver of the right to appeal. State v.

       Smith, 134 Wn.2d 849, 852, 953 P.2d 810 (1998). “When a defendant completes a plea

       statement and admits to reading, understanding, and signing it, this creates a strong

                                                     4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38325-3-III
       State v. D.G.A.

       presumption that the plea is voluntary.” Id. This presumption can be rebutted by

       evidence the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Id.

              As an initial matter, the State objects to our commissioner deciding the motion to

       dismiss based on an issue not briefed by the parties. The State relies on RAP 12.1.

       Subject to RAP 12.1(b), the rule requires courts to decide cases on the basis of the issues

       briefed by the parties. RAP 12.1(b) provides: “If the appellate court concludes that an

       issue which is not set forth in the briefs should be considered to properly decide a case,

       the court may notify the parties and give them an opportunity to present written argument

       on the issue raised by the court.” By its clear terms, the rule applies to cases, not motions.

        Nevertheless, as explained below, there are reasons to incorporate the procedure outlined

       in RAP 12.1(b) when deciding whether to dismiss a criminal appeal for untimeliness.

              “Sweet establishes that the State has the burden to demonstrate a defendant

       understood his right to appeal and consciously gave up that right before a notice of appeal

       may be dismissed as untimely.” Kells, 134 Wn.2d at 314 (citing Sweet, 90 Wn.2d at 287).

        Thus, when deciding a court’s motion to dismiss for untimeliness, the commissioner

       must review the record to ensure the defendant understood and consciously abandoned

       their right of appeal. Because the appellate record is undeveloped at the time a

       commissioner is called on to make a ruling, it would be a good practice for the clerk’s

                                                     5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38325-3-III
       State v. D.G.A.

       letter to direct counsel to brief the issue. The letter should set a briefing schedule and

       expressly remind the parties that under Kells, the State has the burden to demonstrate the

       defendant effectively waived their right to appeal and, absent an affirmative showing, the

       commissioner may be compelled to sua sponte extend time under RAP 18.8(b) to file the

       appeal. In this manner, either party can incorporate portions of the trial court record in

       their response so the commissioner can better decide whether to dismiss the appeal or to

       extend time pursuant to RAP 18.8(b).

              Having addressed the State’s objection, we now address its motion to modify.

       Although our record is imperfect, it is more complete than when our commissioner ruled

       on the motion to dismiss. Due to the length of time that has passed since D.G.A.’s plea

       and sentencing, there is no recording or transcript of the hearing. But there is a statement

       on plea of guilty and, in that statement, the trial court found that D.G.A. entered into the

       plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. This creates “a strong presumption” that

       his plea was voluntary and that D.G.A. validly waived his right to appeal. Smith, 134

       Wn.2d at 852.

              D.G.A. provides nothing to rebut this presumption. He does not assert that he was

       not advised of the consequences of his guilty plea or his limited right to appeal. Nor does

                                                     6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38325-3-III
       State v. D.G.A.

       the record establish any irregularity in the proceedings below that suggests D.G.A. was

       not fully apprised of his rights before pleading guilty.

              D.G.A.’s situation is much like that of the defendant in State v. Cater, 186 Wn.

       App. 384, 345 P.3d 843 (2015). There, the defendant appealed an arson conviction 34

       years after he had entered a guilty plea and had been sentenced to probation. Id. at 391.

       He relied on the presumption he did not waive his right to appeal and on language in his

       statement on plea of guilty, which he alleged misadvised him about his limited right to

       appeal. Id. at 393. We denied his motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal,

       reasoning that the

              Circumstances, including the presumption of a voluntary plea, the
              exceptionally favorable plea agreement, the unexplained 34-year delay in
              filing a notice of appeal, and [the defendant’s] complete failure to assert any
              facts suggesting he was unaware of his limited right to appeal, support the
              strong inference that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his
              limited right to appeal following a guilty plea.

       Id. at 397. We noted that while the language in the statement on plea of guilty “was

       potentially misleading,” without a declaration from the defendant or his original defense

       attorney establishing the defendant was affirmatively misled, it was not appropriate to

       hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and

       voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Id. at 396-97.

                                                     7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38325-3-111
       State v. D. G.A.

              We find Cater persuasive and conclude that D.G.A. has failed to rebut the strong

       presumption that his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We thus grant the

       State's motion to modify and dismiss this appeal as untimely.

       WE CONCUR:
                                                                                      j

       Pennell, J.

                                                                                                 f

                                                   8