Court Opinion

ID: 9532942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:26:28.164923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:52.517779
License: Public Domain

Bridgewater, J,
(concurring) — I agree that the officers violated CrR 3.1(c)(2), and I agree that if there was error, it *417was harmless. The rights provided in CrR 3.1(c)(2) are not of constitutional origin, thus we apply the nonconstitutional harmless error test. State v. Greer, 62 Wn. App. 779, 790 n.4, 815 P.2d 295 (1991); State v. Clark, 48 Wn. App. 850, 863, 743 P.2d 822, review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1015 (1987). But I would not find error.
Jonathan Kirkpatrick clearly waived his right to counsel under Miranda4 when he initiated conversation with the officers. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981); State v. Kaiser, 34 Wn. App. 559, 563, 663 P.2d 839, review denied, 100 Wn.2d 1004 (1983). The State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Kirkpatrick voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel when he initiated conversation with the police and stated, “I don’t need an attorney and I would like to continue to talk to you about the case.”
Additionally, three factors are significant when considering if there was error: (1) no harm resulted from the officers’ violation of CrR 3.1(c)(2) because no statement was made by Kirkpatrick at the officers’ initiation, insistence, or suggestion before Kirkpatrick waived his right to counsel by initiating conversation; (2) Kirkpatrick did invoke his right to counsel, which demonstrated his intelligence and his knowledge and understanding of the right; and (3) the advice of counsel to invoke his rights, which the majority says he was denied, would have been redundant since that is precisely what he did.
Once Kirkpatrick waived his Miranda rights, he also waived his rights under CrR 3.1(c)(2). State v. Wade, 44 Wn. App. 154, 721 P.2d 977, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1003 *418(1986). Since there was a valid waiver, there was no error and no ineffective assistance of counsel.
Review denied at 135 Wn.2d 1012 (1998).

 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966).