Court Opinion

ID: 9898023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:52.984148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:09.023084
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purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion.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For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see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 14, 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. 38482-9-III
                                                      )
                             Respondent,              )
                                                      )
          v.                                          )         PUBLISHED OPINION
                                                      )
       LINDSEY DOMINIQUE ALBRIGHT,                    )
                                                      )
                             Appellant.               )

               PENNELL, J. — Two years after his conviction, Lindsey Albright filed a motion to

       compel discovery from the State. Mr. Albright did not cite any exceptional circumstances

       to justify his motion. He merely referenced superior court criminal rules governing a

       defendant’s right of access to their own lawyer’s file. The trial court denied the motion.

               We affirm. The rules requiring a defense attorney to disclose their files to their

       client do not transfer to the State. When it comes to the State, postconviction discovery

       is generally unavailable absent a showing of extraordinary good cause. Because Mr.

       Albright did not make this showing, the trial court correctly denied his motion.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38482-9-III
       State v. Albright

                                                  FACTS

              In May 2019, Lindsey Albright entered an Alford 1 plea to one count of first-degree

       assault. The superior court accepted Mr. Albright’s plea and sentenced him to 120

       months’ confinement plus 60 months for a firearm enhancement.

              In September 2021, Mr. Albright filed a pro se “Motion to Compel State for

       Discovery.” Clerk’s Papers at 20-22. In his motion, Mr. Albright sought “an order to

       Compel State to disclose discovery. . . . [p]ursuant to CrR 4.7(g)(h).” Id. at 20. The trial

       court denied the motion.

              Mr. Albright timely appeals.

                                                ANALYSIS

              Mr. Albright argues that the State is required to produce discovery materials

       posttrial pursuant to our decision in State v. Padgett, 4 Wn. App. 2d 851, 424 P.3d 1235

       (2018). He is incorrect. Padgett addressed an individual’s right to obtain materials from

       their own attorney, not the right to obtain discovery from the State.

              Attorneys have ongoing obligations to their clients, even after the close of a

       particular case or the termination of representation. See RPC 1.16(d). An attorney’s post-

       representation obligations to a client include surrendering papers, such as a client’s file,

              1
                  North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).

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

       No. 38482-9-III
       State v. Albright

       upon request. See id.; Wash. State Bar Ass’n Rules of Prof’l Conduct Comm., Advisory

       Op. 181 (rev. 2009), available at https://ao.wsba.org/searchresult.aspx?year=&num=

       181&arch=False&rpc=&keywords=. Based on an attorney’s ongoing obligations to their

       client, we held in Padgett that the combined force of RPC 1.16(d) and CrR 4.7(h)(3)

       means an attorney must turn over a client file at the client’s request upon termination of

       representation. 4 Wn. App. 2d at 854. If the client file contains discovery, then the client

       may be able to receive that discovery as part of the client file, subject to appropriate

       redactions. Id. at 854-55. Because a client’s right to their file is rooted in the attorney-

       client relationship, a client’s right to their file is not conditioned on a showing of need.

       See id. at 854.

              The State, on the other hand, does not have obligations to criminally accused

       persons akin to those of legal counsel. In a criminal case, the State is the defendant’s

       party opponent. The State has an obligation to produce discovery during the pendency

       of a criminal case. See CrR 4.7(a); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194,

       10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). This is a fundamental component of litigation, civil or criminal.

       But once a case is over, the State’s ordinary discovery obligations end. 2 This is true even

              2
                Under RPC 3.8(g), a prosecutor has an ongoing obligation to disclose “new,
       credible, and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood [ ] that a convicted
       defendant is innocent.”

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

       No. 38482-9-III
       State v. Albright

       if a conviction is appealed or challenged through a personal restraint petition. See In re

       Pers. Restraint of Gentry, 137 Wn.2d 378, 390-91, 972 P.2d 1250 (1999). Courts

       have inherent power to order discovery in the postconviction context, but only in

       exceptional circumstances where the requesting party shows “good cause,” defined as

       “a substantial likelihood the discovery will lead to evidence that would compel relief

       under RAP 16.4(c).” Id. at 390-92.

              Mr. Albright’s motion did not assert any exceptional circumstances that would

       justify postconviction discovery from the State. Instead, he relied solely on CrR 4.7, as

       interpreted in Padgett. Consistent with Gentry, court rules such as CrR 4.7 do not govern

       a defendant’s request for postconviction discovery from the State. 3 See 137 Wn.2d at 390-

       91. The trial court therefore correctly denied Mr. Albright’s motion.

              Mr. Albright certainly is entitled to request his client file from his trial counsel.

       He may also be entitled to information from a state entity pursuant to a public records

       request. See ch. 42.56 RCW. But Mr. Albright is not entitled to postconviction discovery

       from the State, as was requested in his motion to the superior court.

              3
                We disagree with the blanket statement in State v. Asaeli that “CrR 4.7 applies
       only to procedures before trial.” 17 Wn. App. 2d 697, 698, 491 P.3d 245 (2021). By its
       plain terms, CrR 4.7 sometimes applies “during trial.” CrR 4.7(h)(2). Furthermore, as
       explained in Padgett, the combined force of RPC 1.16(d) and CrR 4.7(h)(3) applies to
       a client’s postconviction request for disclosure of their own attorney’s client file.

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

       No. 38482-9-III
       State v. Albright

                                          CONCLUSION

              The order denying Mr. Albright’s motion for discovery is affirmed.

                                                Pennell, J.

       WE CONCUR:

       Siddoway, C.J.

       Lawrence-Berrey, J.

                                                   5