Court Opinion

ID: 9898285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:29:40.290797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:15.398897
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                        Washington State
                                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Division Two

                                                                                         August 22, 2023

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                         DIVISION II
 STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                               No. 56852-7-II

                               Respondent,

        v.

 SAMUEL JAMESON DEWEY, aka SAMUEL                             UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 DEWEY, SAMUEL JAMISON DEWEY,
 SAMUEL J DEWEY,

                               Appellant.

       CRUSER, A.C.J. — After committing two unrelated crimes, Samuel Dewey was charged

with two counts of first degree assault and one count of second degree assault involving domestic

violence. The State offered Dewey a global resolution to both sets of charges. Dewey accepted the

plea offer. As a part of Dewey’s community custody, the superior court ordered Dewey to undergo

a mental health evaluation and corresponding treatment. Finding Dewey indigent, the superior

court also stated it would not impose discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs). The

judgment and sentence included a mental health evaluation order and discretionary LFOs. Dewey

appeals, arguing that the superior court erred by ordering a mental health evaluation without first

finding him mentally ill, as required by RCW 9.94B.080, and by imposing community supervision

fees when it stated it would not mandate discretionary LFOs. He also filed a statement of additional
No. 56852-7-II

grounds for review (SAG), as well as a supplemental brief asking us to remand for the superior

court to strike the $500 crime victim penalty assessment from his judgment and sentence.

       We remand for the superior court to determine whether to order a mental health evaluation

consistent with the statutory requirements. On remand, the superior court shall also strike the

community supervision fees and the $500 crime victim penalty assessment from Dewey’s

judgment and sentence. We reject the claims of error in Dewey’s SAG.

                                              FACTS

                                         I. BACKGROUND

       In March 2021, Samuel Dewey stabbed two convenience store employees after they asked

him to leave the store. The State charged him with two counts of first degree assault, each with a

deadly weapon enhancement. In August 2021, Dewey attacked another person whom he had been

dating “ ‘on and off’ for the past few years.” Clerk’s Papers (CP), State v. Dewey, No. 56852-7-II,

at 1-2 (Wash. Ct. App.). He tore the victim’s “tank top, giving her multiple scratches on the chest

and shoulders,” and strangled her. Id. at 2. For this incident, the State charged him with one count

of second degree assault – domestic violence.

       The cases were addressed together before the superior court. Dewey was absent on the

scheduled trial date because he had injured himself, was placed in a restraint chair, and was

awaiting jail mental health services. Dewey had “cut his forearms” and “was slamming or banging

his head against the wall [such] that he [ ] open[ed] up a laceration on his head.” Verbatim Rep. of

Proc. (VRP) (Mar. 31, 2022) at 5-6. “[T]here was a sufficient amount of blood associated with the

head injury.” Id. at 6. Despite the circumstances, Dewey’s counsel told the court that he did not

“have concerns about [his] client’s competency,” and responded affirmatively to the superior

                                                 2
No. 56852-7-II

court’s questions as to whether Dewey “appeared to be oriented,” was “responsive to questions,”

and “knew his legal predicament.” Id. at 7.

        The trial date was reset for the following Monday. On that day, the court clerk informed

the parties that the jail reported that Dewey was “harming himself again, hitting his head against

the wall, punching the walls.” VRP (Apr. 4, 2022), State v. Dewey, No. 56849-7-II, at 3 (Wash.

Ct. App.). Dewey nevertheless appeared in court.

                                II. PLEA BARGAIN AND SENTENCING

        In a global resolution for both incidents, Dewey agreed to plead guilty to one count of first

degree assault without a deadly weapon enhancement and to one count of second degree assault.

In the statement of defendant on plea of guilty regarding the first degree assault, Dewey stated that

he “did intentionally make harmful contact with [the victims] with an object likely to produce great

bodily harm and with the intent to inflict great bodily harm.” CP, No. 56849-7-II, at 31

(capitalization omitted). Regarding the second degree assault, Dewey instead allowed the court to

review the police reports and/or the statement of probable cause to establish a factual basis for his

plea.

        At the plea hearing, Dewey said he understood the terms of the plea agreement and

accepted the State’s offer. Defense counsel stated that he and Dewey had “thoroughly gone through

the statement of defendant on plea of guilty,” including Dewey’s initials “in the margins

throughout the document” that “memorialize[d] those sections . . . that [they] went thoroughly

through.” VRP (Apr. 4, 2022), No. 56849-7-II, at 6-7. Dewey confirmed that he had reviewed the

two statements of defendant on plea of guilty with his attorney, understood them, and did not have

any questions about them. When asked by the court if he understood “every one of the[ ] rights [he

                                                  3
No. 56852-7-II

was] giving up” by pleading guilty, Dewey said, “Yes, I do.” Id. at 10-11. He also agreed that

nobody had threatened, forced, or induced him into pleading guilty. The court found that there was

a “factual basis for the plea, that the defendant underst[ood] the nature of the charge and the

consequences of the plea, and that it was a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea” as to each

cause number. Id. at 13.

       At the sentencing hearing, Dewey asked to withdraw his plea and for new counsel. He

stated that he “[felt] like [he] was under duress, and [his] only option was to take a ten-year deal

because [he was] so afraid of losing such a significant amount of [his] life” in prison. VRP (Apr.

8, 2022) at 24. The court considered but denied his requests because Dewey had not “described

any other pressure other than [his counsel] apparently offering the opinion that [Dewey was]

unlikely to succeed at trial.” Id. at 27. The court said that the feeling of pressure as a criminal

defendant was normal, “unless [the defendant] just completely detach[ed] from reality.” Id. at 24.

Dewey “seem[ed] completely in touch with reality, so [the court had] no concerns there.” Id.

       Dewey was sentenced to 120 months for the first degree assault and 17 months for the

second degree assault, to be served concurrently, with 54 months of community custody total, and

ordered to have no contact with the victims. The court also ordered Dewey to undergo a “mental

health evaluation as part of his community custody and . . . any follow-up treatment.” Id. at 39.

The court found Dewey indigent, stating that it would “not impose any other legal financial

obligations” aside from the crime victim penalty assessment and biological testing fee. Id.

However, the judgment and sentence for each cause number provides that Dewey must pay

supervision and community placement fees as determined by the Department of Corrections. The

court also imposed the $500 crime victim penalty assessment.

                                                 4
No. 56852-7-II

        Dewey appeals the superior court’s mental health evaluation order and imposition of

discretionary supervision fees. He also filed a statement of additional grounds (SAG) for our

review on appeal.1 In a supplemental brief, Dewey relies on recent statutory amendments in

requesting that we remand for the superior court to strike the $500 crime victim penalty assessment

from his judgment and sentence.

                                          DISCUSSION

                                      I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

        A superior court may impose crime-related community custody conditions on a defendant.

State v. Brooks, 142 Wn. App. 842, 850, 176 P.3d 549 (2008). We review imposed community

custody conditions for an abuse of discretion. Id.; State v. Johnson, 184 Wn. App. 777, 779, 340

P.3d 230 (2014). An abuse of discretion occurs if the superior court’s decision is “manifestly

unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.” Johnson, 184 Wn. App. at 779.

                       II. MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AND TREATMENT

        Dewey asks us to remand for the superior court to strike the mental health evaluation from

his judgment and sentence. He argues that to order a mental health evaluation, the superior court

should have first found that Dewey was mentally ill, as required by RCW 9.94B.080. The State

concedes that the superior court failed to make the findings required by RCW 9.94B.080, but

argues that the correct remedy is to remand for the superior court to determine whether a mental

health evaluation should be ordered rather than directing the superior court to strike the mental

condition. We agree with the State.

1
    RAP 10.10
                                                5
No. 56852-7-II

       RCW 9.94B.080 provides:

               The court may order an offender whose sentence includes community
       placement or community supervision to undergo a mental status evaluation and to
       participate in available outpatient mental health treatment, if the court finds that
       reasonable grounds exist to believe that the offender is a mentally ill person as
       defined in RCW 71.24.025, and that this condition is likely to have influenced the
       offense.

The mental health evaluation order may be “based on a presentence report and . . . mental status

evaluations that have been filed with the court.” Id.; see also State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660,

676 n.11, 378 P.3d 230 (2016).

       In State v. Jones, 118 Wn. App. 199, 208-11, 76 P.3d 258 (2003), we concluded that the

superior court erred in imposing a mental health treatment and counseling order without following

the requirements of RCW 9.94A.505(9), recodified as RCW 9.94B.080 (LAWS OF 2008, ch. 231,

§ 53). During a plea hearing, the defendant’s “attorney explained that [the defendant] was bipolar

[and] that [the defendant] was off his medications . . . [and] using methamphetamine at the time

of his crimes.” Id. at 202. However, the superior court “did not obtain or consider a presentence

report or mental status evaluation[,] [n]or did [it] make a finding that [the defendant] was a person

whose mental illness had contributed to his crimes.” Id. at 209. We remanded, instructing the

superior court to “strike [this] condition . . . unless it determines that it can presently and lawfully

comply with [the statute].” Id. at 212.

       Similarly, Division One of this court reversed the imposition of a mental health evaluation

because the superior court’s order did not comply with RCW 9.94B.080, instructing the superior

court “to determine whether to order a mental health evaluation” pursuant to RCW 9.94B.080.

Shelton, 194 Wn. App. at 676.

                                                   6
No. 56852-7-II

          Here, we agree with the parties that the superior court abused its discretion in ordering a

mental health evaluation and treatment without first meeting the requirements of RCW 9.94B.080.

We remand for the superior court to determine, consistent with the requirements of RCW

9.94B.080, whether Dewey should be required to obtain a mental health evaluation and complete

any recommended treatment.

                         II. DISCRETIONARY LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS

          Dewey argues that the superior court erred in imposing community supervision and

placement fees because it intended to waive all discretionary LFOs. The State concedes the error.

We accept the State’s concession. Accordingly, we remand for the superior court to strike these

fees.

                              III. STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS

          Dewey submitted a SAG raising additional claims of error. Finding no error, or that the

additional grounds would require us to consider matters outside of the record, we reject these

claims.

A.        Arrest and Search of Apartment

          Dewey raises several claims of error asserting that law enforcement unlawfully arrested

him and searched his apartment. He asserts that there were no affidavits or search warrants for his

arrest, that there was no probable cause for his arrest, and that there was no established nexus

between him, the search of his apartment, and items seized. He then argues that the police

unlawfully seized items from his apartment. We disagree.

          Probable cause for arrest exists when the arresting officer has sufficient knowledge of and

“ ‘reasonably trustworthy information’ ” regarding “ ‘facts and circumstances’ ” that would lead a

                                                   7
No. 56852-7-II

“ ‘person of reasonable caution’ ” to believe that an offense was committed. State v. Barron, 170

Wn. App. 742, 750, 285 P.3d 231 (2012) (quoting State v. Terrovona, 105 Wn.2d 632, 643, 716

P.2d 295 (1986)). A search warrant has probable cause if a supporting affidavit “sets forth facts

and circumstances sufficient to establish a reasonable inference that the defendant is probably

involved in criminal activity and that evidence of the crime can be found at the place to be

searched.” State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133, 140, 977 P.2d 582 (1999).

       First, Dewey’s assertion that law enforcement did not submit affidavits of probable cause

is plainly erroneous. Second, these affidavits present sufficient facts and circumstances such that

law enforcement did have probable cause for his arrest and search of his apartment. When law

enforcement arrived at Dewey’s apartment, they were responding to a report of domestic violence.

In the stabbing case, law enforcement identified Dewey from surveillance camera footage and

found items of clothing that appeared to be stained with blood inside his apartment. Law

enforcement lawfully arrested him, searched his apartment, and therefore lawfully seized items

relevant to Dewey’s case.

B.     Invalid Plea

       Dewey asserts that his plea agreement is invalid on its face and unenforceable because he

did not agree to it knowingly, willingly, or intelligently. He states that his lawyer “did not explain

the totality of the plea” and the “sanctions to be imposed.” SAG at 4. Dewey also argues that his

lawyer should have had him psychologically examined “in accordance with the Trueblood

doctrine” which would have had a “direct bearing on the plea-colloquy and rendered the plea

invalid.” Mot. to Suppl. SAG at 4.

                                                  8
No. 56852-7-II

        To be valid, a “guilty plea must be intelligently and voluntarily made and with knowledge

that certain rights will be waived.” State v. Branch, 129 Wn.2d 635, 642, 919 P.2d 1228 (1996).

“Whether a plea is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made is determined from a totality of

the circumstances.” Id. In State v. Snider, 199 Wn.2d 435, 450, 508 P.3d 1014 (2022), our supreme

court held that an “extended colloquy” in which the superior court “confirm[ed] [the defendant’s]

understanding of the charge against him” supported that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and

intelligent.

        In this case, as in Snider, the superior court engaged Dewey in a colloquy during which he

confirmed his understanding of the plea bargain. The record of that proceeding indicates that the

plea deal was entered into knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. When Dewey tried

to withdraw his plea deal at the sentencing hearing, claiming he was under duress, the superior

court provided him the opportunity to explain, but he did not “describe[ ] any other pressure other

than [his counsel] apparently offering the opinion that [Dewey was] unlikely to succeed at trial.”

VRP (Apr. 8, 2022) at 27. Dewey had ample opportunity to clarify his understanding of the plea

deal. The totality of the circumstances in this case, as ascertained from the record before us,

suggests that Dewey pleaded guilty knowingly, willingly, and intelligently.

        As for his argument about the psychological evaluation, the superior court clarified with

Dewey’s attorney that Dewey was competent. The court also stated, during the sentencing hearing,

that it believed that Dewey was “in touch with reality.” Id. at 24. The record suggests that Dewey

was competent and understood his “legal predicament,” contrary to Dewey’s assertions. VRP

(Mar. 31, 2022) at 7.

                                                9
No. 56852-7-II

C.     Matters Outside the Record

       Dewey asserts that the police responded to a “false police report” made by the victim of

the domestic violence assault case. SAG at 2. He argues that he was subject to an “illegal Terry

stop,” because he “did not show any signs of innocuous behavior or criminal activity.” Id. at 3. He

also says he was unlawfully arrested and transported by plain clothes police offers who failed to

read him his Miranda rights. Id. The record before us does not include sufficient information for

us to address these assertions. Dewey may choose to file a personal restraint petition to “raise

issues on appeal that require evidence or facts not in the existing trial record.” State v. McFarland,

127 Wn.2d 322, 335, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).

D.     Grounds Not Sufficient for Review

       Dewey asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that defense

counsel introduced unprofessional errors that would have changed the outcome of the case. He

claims vindictive prosecution because the State allegedly “made threats of stacking additional

charges or confinement to obtain the upper hand” in his plea deal. SAG at 5. Additionally, he

asserts a violation of his due process rights due to an unfair trial that “resulted in egregious

prejudice.” Id. He also asserts that “[i]nformation of any cell site simulator or stringray device”

and “information . . . of an informant” was not disclosed. Mot. to Suppl. SAG at 4. Finally, Dewey

claims that the “[S]tate and court took up proceedings in absentia[,] claiming [he] was in

segregation due to mental health,” and that he had a “right to be present at every stage of the

proceedings against [him].” Id.

       Under RAP 10.10(c), we need not consider a defendant’s SAG claims if the defendant fails

to “inform the court of the nature and occurrence of alleged errors.” We are “not obligated to

                                                 10
No. 56852-7-II

search the record in support of claims made” in a SAG. Id. Dewey does not elaborate on these

claims. These assertions of error are too vague to allow us to identify specific issues, and we do

not reach them.

                            IV. CRIME VICTIM PENALTY ASSESSMENT

       In a supplemental brief, Dewey asks us to remand for the superior court to strike the $500

crime victim penalty assessment from his judgment and sentence. He argues that a recent

amendment to RCW 7.68.035 provides that the penalty assessment shall not be imposed against a

defendant who is indigent at the time of sentencing, and that the superior court made such a finding

here. LAWS OF 2023, ch. 449, § 1. The State does not object to a remand for purposes of striking

the penalty assessment from Dewey’s judgment and sentence. We accept the State’s concession.

Accordingly, we remand for the superior court to strike the $500 crime victim penalty assessment

from Dewey’s judgment and sentence.

                                         CONCLUSION

       We remand for the superior court to determine whether to order Dewey a mental health

evaluation and corresponding treatment consistent with the requirements of RCW 9.94B.080. We

also remand for the superior court to strike the discretionary community supervision fees from

Dewey’s judgment and sentence, as well as the $500 crime victim penalty assessment. We reject

the claims of error raised in Dewey’s SAG.

                                                11
No. 56852-7-II

       A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

                                                  CRUSER, A.C.J.
 We concur:

 MAXA, J.

 VELJACIC, J.

                                             12