Court Opinion

ID: 9908876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 22:12:30.764133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:34.234952
License: Public Domain

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

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                               No. 85136-5-I
                        Respondent.
                                               DIVISION ONE
v.
                                               UNPUBLISHED OPINION
G.O.,

                        Appellant.

        PER CURIAM — G.O. filed an appeal challenging the imposition of a $100 Victim

Penalty Assessment (VPA) and DNA 1 collection fee as part of his disposition order. In

May 2023, while G.O.’s appeal was pending, the legislature amended the law with

respect to legal financial obligations, which no longer authorizes the court to require

juveniles to pay any legal financial obligations apart from restitution. Laws of 2023, ch.

449 § 1. The legislature also amended the DNA collection statute to eliminate that fee.

Laws of 2023, ch. 449 § 4. Although the amendments did not take effect until after G.O.

was sentenced, our courts have held that the recent amendments to statutes governing

legal financial obligations apply retroactively to matters pending on direct appeal. See

State v. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d 1, 16, 530 P.3d 1048 (2023). The State concedes that it

is appropriate to remand for the purpose of striking the VPA and DNA fee.

        G.O. has filed a statement of additional grounds asserting claims not raised by

counsel. G.O. contends that trial counsel failed to object to the admission of ER 404(b)

        1 Deoxyribonucleic acid.
No. 85136-5-I/2

evidence pertaining to “[p]hone calls and allegations” against him; made insufficient

effort to interview potential witnesses; failed to present the testimony of family members

to support his defense; and failed to adequately advise him about whether or not to

testify.

           To show ineffective assistance of counsel, G.O. must establish that his counsel’s

performance was both deficient and resulted in prejudice. State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17,

32-33, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct.

2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). In evaluating ineffectiveness claims, courts must be

highly deferential to counsel’s decisions; a strategic or tactical decision is not a basis for

finding error. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689-91.          A defendant may overcome the

presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable only by showing there is “‘no

conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel’s performance.’” Grier, 171 Wn.2d at

33, 246 P.3d 1260 (quoting State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130, 101 P.3d 80

(2004)).

           With regard to ER 404(b) evidence, counsel moved pretrial to exclude evidence

related to allegations raised by the victims’ parents about incidents that allegedly occurred

out of state.      In making this motion, the defense expressly did not seek to exclude

testimony about a telephone call between G.O.’s father and the victim’s father, which

prompted the victim’s parents to question her.         Although G.O. now claims that this

evidence was objectionable, the telephone call at issue provided the factual foundation for

the expert witness testimony that supported G.O.’s defense. According to the expert

witness, the telephone call in question, the victim’s awareness of the substance of the call,

and subsequent questioning by the victim’s father provided the “seed” that led to the

                                            -2-
No. 85136-5-I/3

underlying allegations and a “source misattribution or memory mistake” on the part of the

victim. It is evident from the record that defense counsel’s decision not to object, and

instead, to rely on testimony about the telephone call, was strategic.

       G.O.’s claims involving counsel’s decisions with respect to interviewing

witnesses, presenting witness testimony, and discussions with G.O. about trial strategy

and his decision as to whether to testify involve facts and evidence outside of the

appeal record and “are properly raised through a personal restraint petition, not a

statement of additional grounds.” State v. Calvin, 176 Wn. App. 1, 26, 302 P.3d 509

(2013).

       We accept the State’s concession and remand to the superior court to strike the

VPA and DNA fee from the disposition order entered in King County Superior Court

Cause No. 21-8-00188-1.

                                    FOR THE COURT:

                                           -3-