Court Opinion

ID: 9957445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:19:19.878135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:20.525759
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                 APRIL 4, 2024
                                                         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. 39191-4-III
                                              )         (consolidated with
                     Respondent,              )         No. 39192-2-III)
                                              )
   v.                                         )
                                              )        UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JAMES S. OLSON,                               )
                                              )
                     Appellant.               )

        PENNELL, J. — James Olson appeals from orders revoking his drug offender

sentencing alternative (DOSA), and imposing a standard range term of confinement.

We affirm.

                                         FACTS

        Mr. Olson pleaded guilty to one count of felony violation of a domestic violence

protection order in 2021. 1 The protected party was a woman identified by the initials

M.P. At sentencing, the court imposed a residential DOSA. The State did not object.

The DOSA specified Mr. Olson was to be released from custody to inpatient treatment

on October 18, 2021.

       The original charges also included first degree burglary and obstruction of a law
        1

enforcement officer. Those charges were later dismissed.
Nos. 39191-4-III; 39192-2-III
State v. Olson

       Mr. Olson apparently was released as expected and complied with inpatient

treatment. But on January 25, 2022, he was arrested and charged with a new protection

order violation based on contact with M.P. The State filed a new felony charge but did

seek to revoke Mr. Olson’s DOSA.

       Mr. Olson entered a guilty plea to the new protection order violation. At

sentencing, he asked the court to continue his DOSA. Mr. Olson explained he wanted to

participate in treatment and had cut things off with M.P. He asked for a “second chance.”

1 Rep. of Proc. (RP) (May 20, 2022) at 104. The State objected to a second DOSA, but

the court decided it would award a DOSA and give Mr. Olson “one last chance.” Id.

at 110. The court’s DOSA order specified Mr. Olson was to be held in custody until he

could be released to a residential treatment facility.

       Mr. Olson secured an inpatient bed with a start date of June 13, 2022. The

treatment facility was located outside of the county, so a bus ticket was procured to

facilitate travel. At a hearing on June 10, Mr. Olson asked to be released before June 13

so he could go home and pack up his things. Mr. Olson said his brother would help take

him to the bus. The court gave Mr. Olson the benefit of the doubt and ordered his release

on June 12 with the requirement that he report for inpatient treatment on June 13.

                                               2
Nos. 39191-4-III; 39192-2-III
State v. Olson

       Mr. Olson did not report for treatment on June 13 as required. According to

Mr. Olson, his brother drove him to the bus stop, but he missed the bus by about 10

minutes. Mr. Olson tried contacting his attorney, but his attorney’s office was not yet

open. He then tried to turn himself in at the jail, but the jail would not admit him because

there was no court order remanding him to custody.

       After unsuccessfully trying to turn himself in, Mr. Olson apparently relapsed.

Mr. Olson’s attorney worked with the prosecutor’s office to arrange for a remand

order, but Mr. Olson never turned himself into the jail. A warrant was issued based on

Mr. Olson’s DOSA violations and on July 19, 2022, Mr. Olson was arrested. At the time

of his arrest, Mr. Olson was inside of M.P.’s apartment in violation of his outstanding

domestic violence protection order.

       Mr. Olson was brought before the court for a preliminary hearing on July 20, 2022.

Mr. Olson appeared via video conferencing from the jail, but his attorney was not present.

The court advised Mr. Olson of the reasons for his arrest and informed him of his rights.

       During the July 20 hearing, the court addressed the topic of bail. The State

requested bail be set at a $75,000 bond or $7,500 cash. When provided an opportunity to

speak, Mr. Olson stated he was “not even going to ask for release.” 1 RP (Jul. 20, 2022)

at 128. He told the court about missing the bus and explained his brother could vouch for

                                              3
Nos. 39191-4-III; 39192-2-III
State v. Olson

him because “he [was] the one who drove me.” Id. Mr. Olson said he went to M.P.’s

apartment because he needed help and did not know where to go after wandering around

in the sun for hours, disoriented. He testified to being very sick and disoriented. The court

imposed bail consistent with the State’s recommendation.

       The State charged Mr. Olson with a new protection order violation. It also moved

to revoke both his DOSAs. Mr. Olson was arraigned on the new protection order violation

on July 22, 2022. Mr. Olson’s attorney was present for the arraignment hearing.

       At the revocation hearing, Mr. Olson asked to be given “one final chance” at a

DOSA. 1 RP (Aug. 19, 2022) at 154. Mr. Olson again explained how he missed the bus

on June 13 and subsequently relapsed. Mr. Olson stated he was working on turning

himself in, and even had a ride to turn himself in, but then was arrested.

       The State urged the court to revoke the DOSAs and pointed out the court had

already given Mr. Olson a second chance. The State also took issue with some of

Mr. Olson’s prior statements to the court. The State argued Mr. Olson could have turned

himself to the jail once a remand order was issued, but he did not do so. The State also

argued that Mr. Olson’s statements regarding having a ride to turn himself in was “not

what [Mr. Olson] said at his first appearance [on July 20].” Id. at 156. According to the

                                              4
Nos. 39191-4-III; 39192-2-III
State v. Olson

State, Mr. Olson’s statement at his initial appearance was that he “had no ride, he had

nowhere to go.” Id.

       The court decided to revoke Mr. Olson’s DOSAs. In so doing, the court focused

on the colloquy it had with Mr. Olson at the time it imposed the most recent DOSA. The

court explained it had made a “clear-cut statement to Mr. Olson” that “[t]his is your last

chance on that second DOSA.” Id. at 161. The court found compelling evidence to revoke

the DOSAs and impose a standard range sentence.

       Mr. Olson received a total sentence of 25.5 months’ imprisonment as a result of

the DOSA revocations. The most recent protection order violation charge was voluntarily

dismissed. Mr. Olson separately appealed from the court orders revoking his residential

DOSA. We have consolidated those appeals for review.

                                        ANALYSIS

       Mr. Olson argues that the DOSA revocations must be reversed because he was

denied his constitutional right to counsel at his July 20, 2022, hearing. Mr. Olson had

counsel present at all his other hearings. But he argues the July 20 hearing was a critical

stage of his criminal prosecution and, as such, denial of the right to counsel constituted

structural error requiring reversal.

                                              5
Nos. 39191-4-III; 39192-2-III
State v. Olson

       The briefing in this case was submitted prior to our Supreme Court’s decisions

in State v. Charlton, 2 Wn.3d 421, 538 P.3d 1289 (2023), and State v. Heng, 2 Wn.3d

384, 539 P.3d 13 (2023). After the close of briefing, we stayed this appeal pending

the Supreme Court’s disposition in Charlton. Charlton and Heng were decided on

December 7, 2023, and mandates were issued on January 18, 2024. We have therefore

lifted the stay and now decide Mr. Olson’s case on the merits.

       As recognized in Charlton and Heng, the right to counsel is guaranteed by the

federal and state constitutions and by court rule. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Wash.

Const. art. I, § 22; CrR 3.1(b)(1). If counsel is denied during a critical stage of a criminal

prosecution, structural error will apply requiring automatic reversal. Charlton, 2 Wn.3d at

427; Heng, 2 Wn.3d at 392. But “not all pretrial stages are necessarily critical.” Charlton,

2 Wn.3d at 427. Instead, we assess “whether the accused’s rights were lost, defenses were

waived, privileges were claimed or waived, or the outcome of the case was otherwise

substantially affected.” Id.

       The July 20, 2022, hearing was not a critical stage of the prosecution of Mr. Olson.

At the hearing, Mr. Olson did not lose any rights. Nor did he waive any defenses or

privileges. Although the court set bail at the hearing, Mr. Olson did not lose any future

right to challenge the bail decision. While Mr. Olson should have been provided counsel

                                               6
Nos. 39191-4-III; 39192-2-III
State v. Olson

at the July 20 hearing, the Supreme Court’s recent cases in Charlton and Heng make clear

that this hearing was not a critical stage of the prosecution. See Charlton, 2 Wn.3d at 427-

28; Heng, 2 Wn.3d at 394-95.

       When a defendant is denied the right to counsel at a noncritical stage of a

prosecution, relief turns on a constitutional harmless error analysis. Charlton, 2 Wn.3d

at 428-29. Under this standard, reversal is required unless the State shows, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that the error did not impact the disposition of the case. Id.

       The failure to provide counsel at the July 20 hearing was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt. While the presence of counsel at the July 20 hearing might have helped

Mr. Olson argue for a lower bail, the existence of bail did not impact the final outcome of

his case. Mr. Olson argues that had counsel been present, he likely would not have made

statements that were used against him at his later DOSA revocation hearing. But even if

that were true, Mr. Olson’s statements “were only a small part of the evidence against

him.” Heng, 2 Wn.3d at 397. The main reason Mr. Olson’s DOSA sentences were

revoked was that he had already been given a second and final chance at a DOSA. There

is no reason to believe the outcome of Mr. Olson’s case would have been different if

counsel would have been present on July 20.

                                              7
Nos. 39191-4-III; 39192-2-III
State v. Olson

                                     CONCLUSION

       Mr. Olson should have been provided counsel at his July 20, 2022, hearing.

Nevertheless, the hearing did not constitute a critical stage of the prosecution and

the absence of counsel was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The orders on appeal

are therefore affirmed.

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

the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

                                           _________________________________
                                           Pennell, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________
Staab, A.C.J.

______________________________
Fearing, J.

                                             8