Court Opinion

ID: 9898336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:30:02.365596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:14.568189
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     AUGUST 1, 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. 37944-2-III
                                                )
                    Appellant,                  )
                                                )
              v.                                )      UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                                )
HALEY K. BUCKLEY,                               )
                                                )
                    Respondent.                 )

      LAWRENCE-BERREY, A.C.J. — The State appeals the trial court’s sua sponte order

vacating Haley Buckley’s conviction on a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled

substance with intent to deliver. We reverse.

                                         FACTS

      On July 31, 2017, Haley Buckley pleaded guilty in Asotin County to possession of

a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Ms. Buckley was represented by attorney

Robert Van Idour in the criminal proceedings, a lawyer licensed in Idaho but not in

Washington.

      Because our record is limited, we include further details about Mr. Van Idour’s

practice of law in Asotin County as related by our Supreme Court in In re Personal
No. 37944-2-III
State v. Buckley

Restraint of Lewis, which concerned other defendants who had been represented by Mr.

Van Idour in criminal proceedings:

      Van Idour declares he was admitted to the Idaho bar in 1980 and had
      practiced for over 30 years, including handling hundreds of criminal
      defense cases. In 2017, Van Idour began representing clients as a contract
      public defender in Asotin County under APR 8 and under the supervision of
      attorney Neil P. Cox. Van Idour states that he was notified in 2017 that his
      admission by motion requirements were met but that his admission under
      APR 8 was not granted.
              . . .Van Idour stipulated to the following facts in the Washington
      State Bar Association (WSBA) disciplinary complaint: he was admitted to
      practice in Idaho and he was never admitted to practice in Washington; he
      told the Asotin County Board of Commissioners that he was in the process
      of applying for admission in Washington when seeking the county’s
      indigent defense contract; in 2017, he applied to WSBA by motion under
      APR 3(c); and he was awarded the indigent defense contract, which he
      signed on January 29, 2017, requiring him to be a member of WSBA
      throughout the term of the contract (February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018).
              Van Idour further stipulated that he was not admitted to practice at
      the time he executed the contract and did not gain admission during the
      pendency of that contract, in which he represented over 100 clients. On
      February 20, 2017, Van Idour applied for limited admission to WSBA
      under APR 8(c), which was never approved. . . . On October 26, 2017,
      Van Idour was notified that his application for admission under APR 3(c)
      was approved and that he was required to take additional steps prior to
      gaining admission. A little over a month later, Van Idour received notice
      that his APR 8(c) application was denied because he did not meet the
      criteria for limited admission under the rule.
              Van Idour states that he believed he was authorized to practice in
      Asotin County because he had applied for admission under APR 3(c)
      and 8(c), and because the court appointed him as counsel in February 2017.
      But, Van Idour agreed that neither the pending applications nor the court
      appointment actually authorized him to practice and that he should have
      confirmed his authorization with WSBA.

                                           2
No. 37944-2-III
State v. Buckley

              Accordingly, Van Idour stipulated to violating the rules of
       professional conduct by practicing law without authorization. WSBA noted
       Van Idour’s lack of prior disciplinary record, his character and reputation,
       and his remorse as mitigating factors, and noted his lengthy experience was
       an aggravator. WSBA imposed the presumptive sanction of suspension.
       This court approved and suspended Van Idour for 18 months, enjoining him
       from seeking admission to WSBA during that time.

200 Wn.2d 848, 854-56, 523 P.3d 760 (2023).

       Order to vacate

       On December 28, 2020, Judge Gary Libey sua sponte entered an order vacating

Buckley’s judgment and sentence and ordered the State to refund legal financial

obligations. The order reads in relevant part:

       THE COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION FINDS AND ORDERS AS
       FOLLOWS;
              ....
              It is undisputed that Robert Van Idour was never a lawyer
       admitted to practice in the State of Washington at all times relevant
       hereto. As such Mr. Van Idour did not have legal standing to act as Ms.
       Buckley’s attorney, and as a consequence she did not have counsel, let
       alone effective competent counsel to represent her. This Court finds that
       Ms. Buckley did not have counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to
       the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 22 of the Washington State
       Constitution. . . . This Court finds the Judgment and Sentence in this case
       to be a grave and manifest injustice to Ms. Buckley.

              Pursuant to the inherent authority in the court to correct a substantial
       miscarriage of justice, and also pursuant to CrR 7.8 . . . specifically [b] [1],
       irregularity in obtaining a judgment and order [lack of counsel], [2] newly
       discovered evidence [Ms. Buckley did not have legal counsel] which by due
       diligence could not have been discovered by her, [3] misrepresentation by

                                              3
No. 37944-2-III
State v. Buckley

       the appointment of Mr. Van Idour as her “attorney”, and [5] any other
       reason justifying relief from the operation of the Judgment and Sentence, ie
       a prison sentence without the right to counsel afforded to Ms. Buckley.

Clerk’s Papers at 38-39 (alterations in original).

       On January 5, 2021, the State appealed. We stayed the appeal pending the

outcome of Lewis. In Lewis, our Supreme Court concluded that representation by Mr.

Van Idour did not amount to a constitutional denial of counsel because he was a licensed

attorney, albeit an attorney licensed in another state. 200 Wn.2d at 852.

                                         ANALYSIS

       The State contends the trial court erred in sua sponte vacating Ms. Buckley’s

conviction. We agree.

       In vacating Ms. Buckley’s conviction, the trial court relied on its inherent authority

to correct a substantial miscarriage of justice and on CrR 7.8. While we normally review

decisions to vacate a conviction for an abuse of discretion, we review a claim of

constitutional error underlying the decision de novo. State v. Buckman, 190 Wn.2d 51,

57, 409 P.3d 193 (2018).

       On appeal, the State originally raised a number of alleged procedural errors

affecting the court’s order. Our Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis, however, makes

clear that the trial court abused its discretion because it based its decision on a nonexistent

                                              4
No. 37944-2-111
State v. Buckley

denial of counsel. As with the petitioners in Lewis, when Mr. Van Idour represented Ms.

Buckley, "he was duly licensed to practice law in Idaho. He therefore qualifies as counsel

under the Sixth Amendment [to the United States Constitution]." Lewis, 200 Wn.2d at

871.

       Reversed.

       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.

                                          Lawrence-Berrey, A.~}

WE CONCUR:

Pennell, J.                               Staab, J.

                                             5