matters referred to in brief but not included in record cannot be considered on appeal
How later courts described this case
- matters referred to in brief but not included in record cannot be considered on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 79243-1-I
)
Respondent, ) DIVISION ONE
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
DONALD LEE CALVIN, )
)
Appellant. )
)
ANDRUS, A.C.J. — Donald Calvin appeals his convictions of assault,
kidnapping, unlawful possession of a firearm, and taking a motor vehicle without
permission. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for substitute
counsel on the eve of trial, and in denying his alternative requests for a trial
continuance to hire private counsel, or to prepare to represent himself. He also
challenges his exceptional sentence based on the jury’s finding he acted with
deliberate cruelty toward his victim. We affirm his convictions and sentence.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2016, Donald Lee Calvin’s neighbor, Jason Jones, visited
Calvin at his home in Maple Falls, in Whatcom County, Washington. Calvin,
suspecting Jones of having previously stolen a briefcase and tools, attacked Jones
Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.
No. 79243-1-I/2
with a stun gun, shackled him to a ladder in his living room, and proceeded to beat
and torture him for over twelve hours before leaving him to die on a forest road on
Sumas Mountain.
On December 6, 2016, the State charged Calvin with one count of first
degree assault with a firearm, one count of kidnapping, three counts of second
degree unlawful possession of a firearm, and one count of taking a motor vehicle
without permission.
Calvin was appointed counsel from the Whatcom County Public Defender’s
Office. The same attorney represented Calvin throughout 2017 and 2018. At a
trial confirmation hearing on October 3, 2018, Calvin’s counsel represented to the
court that both he and the State were ready to proceed to trial the following week.
During this hearing, Calvin informed the court he had filed several pro se motions
requesting new counsel or a trial continuance so he could gather funds to hire a
private attorney or prepare to represent himself. Calvin claimed his counsel had
failed to interview witnesses, had not visited the site, had disregarded “genuine
defenses such as pattern and volume of blood spatter,” and had refused to listen
to Calvin’s side of the story. The court scheduled a hearing on these pro se
motions for the following day.
During both the October 3 and October 4, 2018, hearings, Calvin’s attorney
informed the court that the public defender’s office could not provide Calvin with a
different attorney from the same office unless there was a legal conflict of interest.
Although Calvin sought, in the alternative, a continuance to prepare to represent
himself, he informed the court “I don’t feel I’m competent, confident or competent”
-2-
No. 79243-1-I/3
to do so. His attorney indicated that, given Calvin’s statement that he was
uncomfortable representing himself, “any colloquy by the court as to his Sixth
Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel with his own representation
has already been essentially defeated by Mr. Calvin by saying that he isn’t qualified
to do that.”
After asking Calvin about the length of time he had been released on bail,
his educational level, his experience in legal studies, and his understanding of the
rules of procedure and evidence, the court denied Calvin’s motions. The court
informed Calvin that his trial counsel was “an experienced trial lawyer who is
effective in the courtroom,” and that it was not appropriate for the court to intervene
in the affairs of the public defender’s office to order the appointment of one attorney
over another. The court suggested that Calvin discuss his concerns with his
attorney and supervisors within the public defender’s office. Calvin indicated his
willingness to do so. The court denied Calvin’s motion for a trial continuance and
his motion to represent himself because, given the seriousness of the crimes, the
court agreed with Calvin that he would be unable to handle his defense without the
assistance of counsel.
The parties appeared for trial on October 8. Calvin once again moved to
replace his attorney or to continue trial, claiming he was trying to sell his house to
pay for a private attorney. Calvin alleged his attorney had violated the rules of
professional conduct but refused to identify the violations orally because he wanted
to submit a formal written motion at a later date.
After hearing argument, the court denied Calvin’s motion for a trial
-3-
No. 79243-1-I/4
continuance, finding the request untimely. The court stated that the trial had been
delayed for two years, giving Calvin plenty of time to resolve representation issues,
and it would not grant a continuance on the first day of trial. The court then
engaged in another colloquy with Calvin to determine whether Calvin should be
permitted to proceed pro se. Again, Calvin admitted he was not prepared to
represent himself and the court denied his motion on that basis.
Calvin’s attorney requested that the court address Calvin’s accusations that
counsel had violated the rules of professional conduct (RPCs). The court agreed
to do so and asked Calvin to explain what rules he believed his attorney had
violated. Calvin stated his attorney violated the RPCs at the October 4 hearing by
telling the court that Calvin was incompetent to represent himself. In response to
direct questions from the court, Calvin’s attorney stated that “what’s most important
for me to do is ensure Mr. Calvin has effective assistance of counsel.” He informed
the court he believed remaining on the case was in Calvin’s best interest. The
court concluded that trial counsel “has an obligation to tell the court what he or she
honestly thinks about representing a client when these issues arise. He is, in fact,
bound by the rules of professional conduct to do just that.” It found the attorney-
client relationship had not broken down to the point that the parties were unable to
communicate and refused to delay the trial any further.
On October 15, in the middle of trial, Calvin filed a motion for mistrial, again
arguing his trial attorney behaved unethically at the October 4 hearing, and failed
to interview witnesses, visit the crime scene, examine exculpatory evidence, or
consider possible defenses. A private attorney, David Kennedy, with whom Calvin
-4-
No. 79243-1-I/5
had consulted but whom he had not retained, submitted a declaration in support
of Calvin’s motion, opining that trial counsel had violated RPC 1.16(a)(3) by
resisting Calvin’s attempts to discharge him. Kennedy also opined that counsel
had violated RPC 1.6(a) by disclosing to the court, in the presence of the
prosecutor, that counsel had chosen not to interview some of the police officers
involved in the investigation because there were inconsistencies in their reports
that he did not want to bring to their attention before trial. Kennedy contended the
attorney should have asked to make this disclosure ex parte, in camera, and under
seal.
The trial court conducted another hearing to address Calvin’s motion on
October 22. Calvin stated that the attorney-client relationship had broken down
completely and he requested a continuance to gather the funds to hire Kennedy.
The court again denied the motion, explaining that although Calvin’s relationship
with his public defender might be strained, it could not find it was broken based on
the court’s observations of Calvin and his attorney working together during trial.
During this hearing, Calvin indicated his intent to file an affidavit of prejudice to
force the trial judge to recuse himself. The court denied the request to recuse
given that the court had already made discretionary decisions.
The jury found Calvin guilty of all counts, found he was armed with a firearm
at the time of the assault and the kidnapping, and found the State had proved the
“deliberate cruelty” aggravating factor. The court imposed an exceptional
sentence of 480 months.
-5-
No. 79243-1-I/6
ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Substitute Counsel
Calvin first argues the trial court erred in declining to substitute counsel,
claiming a breakdown in communication with his attorney denied him the
constitutional right to counsel. We disagree. The trial court had a reasonable basis
for concluding that any conflict between Calvin and his trial attorney was not so
adversarial in nature, as to deny Calvin an adequate defense.
This court reviews a trial court’s decision denying a motion for substitute
counsel for abuse of discretion. State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 200, 86 P.3d 139
(2004). The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 22 of
the state constitution ensure a defendant’s right to counsel at all stages of a
criminal proceeding. U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144, 126 S. Ct. 2557,
165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006). However, the Sixth Amendment does not provide a
defendant an absolute right to counsel of his choice. Varga, 151 Wn.2d at 200.
“To justify appointment of new counsel, a defendant must show good cause to
warrant substitution of counsel, such as a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable
conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and the
defendant.” Id. (quotations omitted).
To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant
a motion for substitution of counsel on the basis of an alleged breakdown in
communication, the reviewing court considers the extent of the conflict, the
adequacy of the trial court’s inquiry into the conflict, and the timeliness of the
defendant’s motion. In re Pers. Restraint of Stenson, 142 Wn.2d 710, 724, 16 P.3d
-6-
No. 79243-1-I/7
1 (2001). A conflict over trial strategy or a defendant’s lack of trust or confidence
in his attorney does not constitute a conflict of interest or warrant substitution of
counsel. State v. Cross, 156 Wn.2d 580, 607, 132 P.3d 80 (2006). “Attorney-
client conflicts justify the grant of a substitution motion only when counsel and
defendant are so at odds as to prevent presentation of an adequate defense.”
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 734, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997).
Calvin argues he was denied an adequate defense because trial counsel
refused to communicate with him about issues of trial strategy and failed to
interview witnesses and examine evidence Calvin believed would help his case.
He contends that this serious breakdown in communication warranted substitution
of counsel even if his appointed counsel was competently representing him, citing
U.S. v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2001).
Nguyen is instructive, but does not support Calvin’s argument because the
facts before us are so different. In that case, the federal district court judge denied
the defendant’s motion for substitute counsel on the eve of trial after an alleged
breakdown in communication between the defendant and his public defender. Id.
at 1000-01. The Ninth Circuit held on appeal that the district court had abused its
discretion in denying the motion because it failed to balance the defendant’s Sixth
Amendment rights against any inconvenience and delay from granting the
continuance, it failed to question the attorney and defendant “privately and in
depth” about their conflict, and there was no question that a complete breakdown
in the attorney-client relationship had occurred. Id. at 1004-05.
-7-
No. 79243-1-I/8
Nguyen does not require us to reverse Calvin’s convictions. First, the Ninth
Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in evaluating the timeliness of
the request by improperly emphasizing the court’s own schedule at the expense
of Nguyen’s Sixth Amendment rights. Id. at 1003. The same cannot be said here.
The trial court concluded Calvin’s motions were untimely, not based on an
individual judge’s schedule, but based on the circumstances of the case as a
whole. The judge presiding at the October 4 hearing recognized that a delay would
create complications with the availability of many of the State’s witnesses. And
the judge presiding at trial determined that Calvin had known of the alleged conflict
as early as January 2017 and had inexplicably waited two years to raise concerns.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Calvin’s motion was
untimely under these circumstances.
Second, in Nguyen, the district court denied the motion for substitute
counsel before hearing from the defendant and made its decision outside the
defendant’s presence. Id. at 1002. Here, most of the objectionable conduct Calvin
identified had either occurred in the trial court’s presence or was discussed on the
record during the trial court’s questioning of Calvin. And the court did not reject
Calvin’s concerns out of hand but investigated the basis for Calvin’s disagreements
with trial counsel in a manner far beyond that of the district court in Nguyen.
Calvin had the opportunity to raise his concerns on three separate
occasions. At the October 4, 2018, hearing, Calvin offered no evidence other than
a lack of confidence in his attorney and a disagreement on trial strategy to justify
substitution of counsel. When Calvin renewed his motions on the first day of trial,
-8-
No. 79243-1-I/9
the court again conducted a lengthy discussion with Calvin about his request. And
on October 22, 2018, in the midst of trial, when Calvin renewed his motions a third
time, the court held yet another hearing to determine whether communication
between Calvin and his attorney was broken beyond repair. At each hearing, the
court went to great lengths to consider and evaluate Calvin’s claims, unlike
Nguyen.
Lastly, in Nguyen the court concluded that “[t]here is no question in this case
that there was a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship,” based on
the fact that the defense attorney acknowledged that his client would no longer
speak to him. Id. at 1004. The trial court here heard Calvin’s allegations that such
a breakdown existed but found Calvin’s accusations not credible. The court
disagreed with Calvin’s characterization of his relationship with his trial attorney,
citing its observation of effective communication between Calvin and his attorney
as they negotiated a stipulation with the State regarding the admissibility of
Calvin’s prior felony. The record also indicates that Calvin and his attorney
successfully conferred about potential witnesses and jointly decided to call only
Calvin to the stand.
In sum, the trial court found Calvin’s motions for substitute counsel were
untimely and that Calvin had not demonstrated a breakdown in communications
between client and attorney warranting this change in counsel at such a late date.
These findings are supported by the record. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to grant Calvin’s motion for substitution of counsel.
-9-
No. 79243-1-I/10
B. Motion for a Continuance
Calvin next argues the trial court denied him the constitutional right to
counsel of his choice when it denied a 90-day continuance to allow him to retain a
private defense attorney. We disagree.
This court reviews the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of
discretion. State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561, 604, 23 P.3d 1046 (2001); U.S. v.
Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir.1999).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to be represented by one's
preferred attorney. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S. Ct. 1692,
100 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1988). However, the right to retain counsel of one's own choice
has limits and does not permit a defendant to unduly delay the proceedings. State
v. Aguirre, 168 Wn.2d 350, 365, 229 P.3d 669 (2010). In considering whether a
denial of a continuance might deprive a defendant of his right to counsel, the trial
court must weigh the right to choose counsel against the public’s interest in the
prompt and efficient administration of justice. Id.
Nothing in the record indicates the trial court abused its discretion in denying
Calvin’s requested continuance. The court appropriately weighed Calvin’s Sixth
Amendment rights against considerations of the victim’s interests, availability of
witnesses, and trial efficiency. Both the prosecutor and Calvin’s attorney were
prepared for trial when Calvin filed his motion. Calvin brought his motion on the
eve of trial, even though he admitted the alleged conflict had existed for nearly two
years, and he had no explanation for his failure to seek this relief earlier in the
- 10 -
No. 79243-1-I/11
case. Under these circumstances, the trial court acted within its discretion in
denying the motions for a continuance.
C. Motion for Self-Representation
Calvin next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions to
represent himself. We reject this argument because Calvin’s request was neither
timely nor unequivocal.
This court reviews a trial court’s decision to deny a defendant’s request to
represent himself for abuse of discretion. State v. Curry, 191 Wn.2d 475, 483, 423
P.3d 179 (2018). “[E]ven if we disagree with the trial court’s ultimate decision, we
do not reverse that decision unless it falls outside the range of acceptable choices.”
Id. at 484. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate a defendant’s request.
Id. at 484-85.
The right to self-representation is not absolute. Id. at 482. “Trial courts
must indulge in every reasonable presumption against a defendant's waiver of his
or her right to counsel before granting a defendant's request to waive the right to
assistance of counsel and proceed pro se.” Id. at 486 (quotations omitted). Under
this standard, Washington courts engage in a two-step inquiry:
First, the court must determine whether the request for self-
representation is timely and unequivocal. If the request for self-
representation is untimely or equivocal, the defendant's right to
counsel remains in place and the trial court must deny the request
to proceed pro se. Second, if the request is timely and
unequivocal, the court must then determine whether the request
is also voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Id. (citations omitted). The record supports the trial court’s finding that Calvin’s
request was neither timely nor unequivocal.
- 11 -
No. 79243-1-I/12
While Calvin repeatedly requested he be permitted to represent himself, he
also repeatedly stated he was incompetent and uncomfortable doing so, and his
request was conditioned on a trial continuance. During the October 4, 2018
hearing, Calvin stated,
I'm financially wiped out, I have my house up for sale and I'm
hoping, I've spoken to [a private defense attorney] at length, and
if the house should sell then perhaps I can hire outside counsel,
but in the interim I'm not comfortable attempting to represent
myself. I don't feel I'm competent, confident or competent. I have
a high school diploma, something I earned in two-and-a-half
years, and that is all.
Calvin contends the court erred in denying his request on October 4, 2018,
because it based its decision on whether self-representation was in Calvin’s “best
interest.” We disagree with this characterization of the court’s ruling. Given
Calvin’s admission that he was neither comfortable nor competent to represent
himself without a lengthy trial continuance, the court simply agreed with Calvin that
he would have inadequate time to get himself up to speed given the seriousness
of the charges against him. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion or
apply an incorrect legal standard in ruling on his motion.
When Calvin raised the issue again on October 8, the court extensively
questioned Calvin on his ability to represent himself. And again, Calvin said he
would not be able to effectively represent himself without a continuance, stating
“[i]f I don't have time to study and prepare, assuming that I'm going to have that
jury and we are going on to trial today, tomorrow, then I would not be able to
represent myself.” The court correctly noted that Calvin’s request was equivocal
at best and nearly two years had passed between when charges were brought and
- 12 -
No. 79243-1-I/13
his first request to proceed pro se. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying
any of Calvin’s motions to represent himself.
D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Calvin maintains he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his
trial attorney violated ethical standards and failed to properly prepare for trial. The
record does not support either argument.
Whether a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed
question of fact and law that we review de novo. In re Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853,
865, 16 P.3d 610 (2001). To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel,
[f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was
deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious
that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the
defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must
show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This
requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive
the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674
(1984). See also State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 225-26, 743 P.2d 816 (1987).
In order to satisfy this test, the defendant must show (1) his counsel’s
representation fell below a minimum objective standard of reasonableness based
on all the circumstances, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome would have been different. State v.
Benn, 120 Wn.2d 631, 663, 845 P.2d 289 (1993). “There is a strong presumption
that counsel has rendered adequate assistance and has made all significant
decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. at 665.
- 13 -
No. 79243-1-I/14
Calvin first argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his attorney violated the RPCs during the October 4, 2018 hearing.
Although professional standards do not establish minimum Sixth Amendment
standards and are not binding, they are often useful to courts in evaluating
ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. A.N.J., 168 Wn.2d 91, 110, 225 P.3d
956 (2010). Calvin contends his attorney’s conduct fell below professional norms
and violated RPC 1.16(a)(1), and (3) when he refused to withdraw after Calvin
attempted to discharge him. RPC 1.16(a) states that, “except as stated in
paragraph (c), a lawyer shall . . . withdraw from the representation of a client if (1)
the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or
other law;” or “(3) the lawyer is discharged.”
But under RPC 1.16(c), “[a] lawyer must comply with applicable law
requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation.
When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation
notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.” At no point did
the trial court grant permission to Calvin’s appointed attorney to withdraw. In fact,
at multiple points during the proceeding, the trial court ordered counsel to remain
as defense counsel.
Calvin next maintains that his attorney violated RPC 1.16(a) by taking a
position contrary to his own when he argued against Calvin’s pro se motions. But
Calvin mischaracterizes his attorney’s comments during the October 4, 2018
hearing as “actively opposing” Calvin’s motions. Counsel made no comment about
Calvin’s request for a continuance or to substitute counsel. He did indicate that,
- 14 -
No. 79243-1-I/15
to the extent Calvin sought substitute counsel from the same public defender’s
office, this request was not an option. But in doing so, counsel did not oppose
Calvin’s motion; rather, he apprised the court of the realities of the internal
procedures of the public defender’s office.
Counsel did ask the court not to allow Calvin to represent himself but he did
so only after Calvin admitted he was incompetent to do so and uncomfortable
being put into the position of representing himself without a trial continuance.
Counsel’s comments were consistent with Calvin’s position at the hearing.
Calvin also claims that counsel violated RPC 1.6(a) during the October 4,
2018 hearing by revealing trial strategy in front of the prosecutor. RPC 1.6(a)
provides: “[a] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a
client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly
authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by
paragraph (b).” RPC 1.6(b)(5) provides an exception to the rule and allows a
lawyer to “reveal information relating to the representation of a client to establish
a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer
and the client.”
When Calvin complained his attorney had not interviewed witnesses, the
court asked counsel to respond. The attorney stated:
I have chosen to not interview many of the officers because I do
believe the officers, quite frankly, there have been some, I don't know
about mistakes, but things overlooked by the officers and I have no
intention of bringing those issues before the State and/or the officers
in an interview. And that has been my practice for the better part of,
well, more than a decade and I have found it to be the most fruitful
way to proceed at trial.
- 15 -
No. 79243-1-I/16
These comments do not violate RPC 1.6(a). First, Calvin alleged his
attorney was not prepared for trial and had not acted with reasonable diligence in
his representation of Calvin. Under these circumstances, RPC 1.6(b)(5) permitted
the court to inquire and counsel to defend his performance in the face of these
accusations.
Second, the disclosure was entirely too vague to constitute a prejudicial
disclosure of trial strategy. Although comment 25 to RPC 1.6 states that a lawyer
must make “every effort practicable to avoid unnecessary disclosure of information
relating to a representation,” the attorney’s statement was intentionally vague and
revealed no specific inconsistencies in the officers’ statements.
Finally, Calvin has once again made no showing that, but for this disclosure,
the outcome of the case would have been different. There is nothing in the trial
court record to indicate that the police officers’ testimony materially differed at trial
as a result of any statement counsel made during the October 4 hearing. Calvin
has failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
Calvin lastly claims that his attorney failed to properly prepare for trial by
declining to interview witnesses and investigate possibly exculpatory evidence.
“Ordinarily, the decision whether to call a witness is a matter of legitimate trial
tactics and will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The
presumption of counsel's competence can be overcome, however, by showing
counsel failed to . . . adequately prepare for trial, or subpoena necessary
witnesses.” State v. Maurice, 79 Wn. App. 544, 552, 903 P.2d 514 (1995). The
defendant bears the burden of showing there were no “legitimate strategic or
- 16 -
No. 79243-1-I/17
tactical reasons” behind defense counsel's decisions. State v. McFarland, 127
Wn.2d 322, 336, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).
Calvin presents only cursory or vague accusations that trial counsel did not
properly prepare for trial or call the witnesses necessary to ensure an adequate
defense. Calvin relies on the fact that he “repeatedly informed the court that
[counsel] had not prepared any trial plan or defense strategy and had failed to
interview witnesses or investigate possible exculpatory evidence.” But Calvin fails
to identify any specific witness or exculpatory evidence overlooked by his attorney
and certainly fails to show how any decisions regarding who to call at trial lacked
legitimate strategic reasoning.
At sentencing, Calvin told the trial court that counsel had refused to call
witnesses to testify that his victim, Jones, had previously stolen items from Calvin’s
home. But the trial court correctly recognized that the decision not to call these
witnesses was a legitimate and reasonable strategic decision, because, had he
called such witnesses, “he would have been handing the State proof of motive.”
We have no basis for concluding otherwise here.
The only other witness Calvin appears to have asked his attorney to call
was James Wood, a local laborer who had testified for the State regarding his work
for Calvin, his contacts with him on the morning after the assault on Jones, and his
discovery of a handgun and handcuffs at Calvin’s home. After the State rested,
Calvin’s attorney notified the court that Calvin wanted him to call James Wood
back to the stand as a defense witness. Counsel requested a half hour to think
through Calvin’s request and to figure out what to do. After this recess, counsel
- 17 -
No. 79243-1-I/18
informed the court that “after talking with Mr. Calvin and some other
considerations, defense will not be calling any other witness. Mr. Calvin will
testify.” This series of events demonstrates Calvin’s attorney did consider calling
Wood back to the stand and discussed the advantages and disadvantages with
Calvin before making the final decision. Calvin has not overcome the strong
presumption that the decision not to recall Wood was anything other than a
legitimate, strategic move.
Finally, Calvin complained at trial that he wanted to retain an expert witness
to testify about the blood spatter evidence inside his home. The State presented
testimony that Jones’s blood was found on a baseball bat, a metal pipe, the living
room carpet, a rope, a dark colored sweatshirt, and a ladder all found inside
Calvin’s house. The blood evidence matched Jones’s testimony regarding the
various items Calvin had used to beat him, where the beating occurred, and how
Calvin had shackled him to a ladder to keep him from fleeing the assault.
During trial, Calvin argued that blood spatter analysis would refute police
testimony about the blood found at Calvin’s house. The court pointed out that the
overall value of expert witness testimony on blood spatter appeared to be very low,
almost to the point of being irrelevant and it could see why Calvin’s attorney might
have decided not to call such a witness for strategic reasons.
The record supports the trial court’s conclusion. The State did not rely on
any expert testimony regarding blood spatter to infer what happened inside
Calvin’s house on the day of the assault. The mere presence of Jones’s blood
inside Calvin’s home, on weapons Calvin admitted using to attack Jones, and on
- 18 -
No. 79243-1-I/19
shackles and a ladder found on Calvin’s property supported Jones’s version of
events and the State’s theory of the case. At trial, Calvin admitted he assaulted
Jones. His defense was that he attacked Jones in self-defense. Like the trial court,
we cannot see how a blood spatter expert would have advanced Calvin’s defense
or undercut the State’s evidence.
Calvin fails to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
E. Affidavit of Prejudice
Calvin argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to file an
affidavit of prejudice against Judge Olson. This claim also lacks merit. A party to
any action in superior court may disqualify no more than one judge from hearing a
matter so long as the disqualification is filed and called to the attention of the judge
before the judge has made a discretionary ruling in a case. RCW 4.12.050. By
the time Calvin indicated an intent to file an affidavit of prejudice against the trial
judge on October 22, 2018, the court had made numerous discretionary rulings.
Calvin’s motion was therefore untimely and the trial court did not err in refusing to
disqualify itself from presiding to the conclusion of trial.
F. Evidence of Deliberate Cruelty
Calvin next argues that the State did not prove that his conduct manifested
the aggravating factor of deliberate cruelty toward his victim. We disagree.
When sufficiency of the aggravating factor is challenged, the court reviews
the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine “whether any
rational trier of fact could have found the presence of the aggravating
- 19 -
No. 79243-1-I/20
circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Zigan, 166 Wn. App. 597,
601-02, 270 P.3d 625 (2012).
The legislature allows a court to impose a sentence outside the standard
range for an offense if “[t]he defendant's conduct during the commission of the
current offense manifested deliberate cruelty to the victim.” RCW 9.94A.535(3)(a).
The jury returned a special verdict finding that Calvin had acted with deliberate
cruelty in the commission of assault and kidnapping.
Calvin argues the definition of deliberate cruelty requires the jury to make a
factual comparison between a “typical” assault and kidnapping case and those
same crimes carried out with deliberate cruelty. Without evidence of what
constitutes a “typical” assault, he argues, the State did not meet its evidentiary
burden. Calvin’s argument is without merit.
First, the jury instructions adequately informed the jury how to decide if
Calvin’s actions constituted deliberate cruelty. The instructions laid out the
elements of first degree assault and first degree kidnapping. Assault in the first
degree requires a showing of a single assault, committed with the intent to inflict
great bodily harm, or an assault committed with a deadly weapon, or with force
likely to produce great bodily harm. Kidnapping in the first degree requires a
showing of an abduction with the intent to inflict bodily injury or extreme mental
distress. The instructions defined deliberate cruelty as “gratuitous violence or
other conduct which inflicts physical, psychological, or emotional pain as an end in
itself, and which goes beyond what is inherent in the elements of the crime.” These
instructions alone permitted the jury to compare conduct “inherent in the elements
- 20 -
No. 79243-1-I/21
of the crime” against conduct that is “gratuitous violence” that goes beyond what
is inherent in the elements of assault and kidnapping.
The evidence at trial established Calvin repeatedly struck Jones with a
baseball bat and a metal pipe, used a Taser on him, injected him with unknown
substances, and forced him to drink something Jones believed to have been
spiked with drugs. Calvin held Jones captive for hours by shackling him by his
wrist and ankles to a ladder. At one point, he pointed a rifle at Jones’s head and
pulled the trigger. Calvin ultimately carried Jones to the car in which he arrived,
drove the car up a logging road, and after Jones leapt from the moving car, left him
there without calling for medical aid. Jones sustained a fractured skull and cheek
bone, open fractures to multiple bones in both hands, traumatic damage to his
muscles in his hands and fingers, and damage to his kidneys. Calvin beat Jones
to within an inch of his life, exceeding what any reasonable juror would conclude
was inherent in the elements of the two charged crimes. The jury had sufficient
information to find Calvin acted with deliberate cruelty.
Second, Calvin’s legal argument that the State needs to provide evidence
of what constitutes a “typical” assault is based on a footnote in State v. Suleiman,
158 Wn.2d 280, 294 n.5, 143 P.3d 795 (2006). His reliance on Suleiman is
misplaced. In that case, after the defendant pleaded guilty to vehicular assault,
the trial court imposed an exceptional sentence finding the crime to be far more
egregious than the typical vehicular assault and his victim to be particularly
vulnerable. Id. at 287. The Supreme Court reversed the sentence, concluding
Suleiman had not stipulated to the facts on which the trial court relied for the
- 21 -
No. 79243-1-I/22
exceptional sentence. Id. at 293-294. In a footnote, the court stated that the trial
court’s finding that the crime was more egregious than the typical vehicular assault
necessarily involved a factual comparison that must be done by a jury, rather than
by a trial court. Suleiman, 158 Wn.2d at 294 n. 5.
But the court in Suleiman did not hold, as Calvin suggests, that the State
needs to produce factual evidence of what constitutes the “typical” assault or
kidnapping. The court merely held that when an exceptional sentence is based on
facts not otherwise stipulated to by a defendant, it is the jury, and not the trial court,
who must make the factual determinations. Id. at 293-94. This requirement was
clearly satisfied here.
We therefore conclude that the jury’s finding of deliberate cruelty was
supported by sufficient evidence.
G. Vagueness Doctrine
Calvin next argues that the deliberate cruelty aggravating factor violates his
due process rights under the void for vagueness doctrine. Because the vagueness
doctrine does not apply to aggravating factors, we reject this argument.
The due process clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government
from enforcing criminal laws that are so vague that they fail to give ordinary people
fair notice of the conduct the laws punish. Beckles v. U.S., __ U.S. __ 137 S. Ct.
886, 892, 197 L. Ed. 2d 145 (2017). This void-for-vagueness doctrine applies to
both “laws that define criminal offenses and laws that fix the permissible sentences
for criminal offenses.” Id. Sentencing statutes must specify the range of available
sentences with clarity. Id. But sentencing guidelines that “merely guide the
- 22 -
No. 79243-1-I/23
exercise of a court's discretion in choosing an appropriate sentence within the
statutory range” are not subject to a vagueness challenge. Id.
In Beckles, the Supreme Court held that the advisory federal sentencing
guideline that gives a district court the discretion to enhance a sentence upon a
finding that a defendant had two or more prior convictions for “crimes of violence,”
is not subject to a vagueness challenge under the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Id. at 890-91.
Beckles is consistent with our Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Baldwin,
150 Wn.2d 448, 459, 78 P.3d 1005 (2003), in which the court held that the void-
for-vagueness doctrine does not apply to aggravating factors that allow a
sentencing court to impose an exceptional sentence. The defendant in Baldwin
challenged the sentencing guidelines found in RCW 9.94A.535(3)(d) (major
economic offense) (then codified as RCW 9.94A.390)(2)(d)), arguing that the
statute “did not provide explicit standards to protect against arbitrary application”
because it did not provide a “framework to determine when an identity theft
involves a degree of sophistication that is ‘greater than typical of theft of identity’
or when there is an attempted monetary loss substantially ‘greater than typical for
theft of identity.’” Id. at 457.
Our Supreme Court rejected this void-for-vagueness challenge:
Sentencing guidelines do not inform the public of the penalties
attached to a criminal conduct nor do they vary the statutory
maximum and minimum penalties assigned to illegal conduct by the
legislature. A citizen reading the guideline statutes will not be forced
to guess at the potential consequences that might befall one who
engages in prohibited conduct because the guidelines do not set
penalties. Thus, the due process considerations that underlie the
- 23 -
No. 79243-1-I/24
void-for-vagueness doctrine have no application in the context of
sentencing guidelines.
Id. at 459 (citations omitted).
Calvin argues that Baldwin preceded Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296,
124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), and is no longer good law. Blakely did
not involve a void-for-vagueness challenge. In that case, a defendant pleaded
guilty to second degree kidnapping and the State recommended a sentence within
the standard range of 49 to 53 months. Id. at 299-300. The sentencing court
imposed an exceptional sentence of 90 months, finding the defendant had acted
with deliberate cruelty under former RCW 9.94A.390. Id. The defendant argued
the sentence violated his constitutional right to have a jury determine beyond a
reasonable doubt all facts legally essential to his sentence. Id. at 301. The
Supreme Court agreed and held that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466,
490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), “[o]ther than the fact of a prior
conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.” The Supreme Court did not hold that the void-for-vagueness doctrine
applies to statutory aggravating factors found by a jury to exist.
Calvin argues that under Blakely, statutory aggravating factors are now
elements of the crime making them subject to the void-for-vagueness doctrine.
Calvin’s analytical leap is not only unsupported by Blakely but is also inconsistent
with the recent decision in Beckles.
- 24 -
No. 79243-1-I/25
We conclude Baldwin is dispositive here and we reject Calvin’s void-for-
vagueness challenge to the “deliberate cruelty” aggravating factor of RCW
9.94A.535(3)(a).
H. Statement of Additional Grounds
Calvin raises a number of other issues in his statement of additional
grounds, none of which have merit. He first argues the prosecutor committed
misconduct when he blamed Calvin for the delay in the commencement of trial. To
prove prosecutorial misconduct, Calvin must establish that the prosecutor's
conduct was improper and prejudicial in the context of the entire case and that
there is a substantial likelihood that the instances of misconduct affected the jury's
verdict. State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 442-43, 258 P.3d 43. Calvin has
not met this standard here.
The prosecutor did not blame Calvin for the delay in the trial. And the cause
of the two-year delay was immaterial to the trial court’s decision to deny Calvin’s
motions as untimely. What was relevant was the fact that Calvin had had ample
time to retain private counsel, or to prepare to represent himself, had he decided
a change in counsel was in his best interest.
Calvin next argues the trial court violated his constitutional right to a speedy
trial. To show a violation of constitutional speedy trial rights, Calvin must establish
actual prejudice to his ability to prepare a defense unless the delay “is so lengthy
that prejudice to the ability to defend must be conclusively presumed.” State v.
Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d 813, 826, 312 P.3d 1 (2013). To trigger a speedy-trial analysis,
a defendant must allege that the interval between charge and trial has crossed the
- 25 -
No. 79243-1-I/26
threshold dividing ordinary from “presumptively prejudicial delay.” Id. at 827.
Where the delay is sufficiently long to trigger the presumption of prejudice, the
analysis of speedy trial violations is fact-specific and dependent upon the peculiar
circumstances of the case. State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273, 292, 217 P.3d 768
(2009). Among the nonexclusive factors to be considered are the length of delay,
the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and
the prejudice to the defendant. Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 827. While the 22-month
delay between the date of Calvin’s charge and his trial is sufficient to trigger a more
in-depth analysis, none of the factors leads us to conclude that a speedy trial
violation occurred in this case.
First, the length of delay was proportionate to the seriousness and
complexity of the case. Second, there is no evidence indicating that the delay was
purposed to frustrate Calvin’s defense. The primary concern with each
continuance was readiness of both parties and the availability of witnesses. At
least one continuance can be entirely attributed to the defense. Calvin objected to
the continuances twice, but in each case, the court’s decision to continue trial was
partially due to the fact that defense counsel was unprepared. These continuances
at least partially furthered Calvin’s interests in the preparedness of his own
counsel. We can identify no prejudice Calvin suffered by any of the continuances,
particularly given Calvin’s trial request for additional time to sell his home to retain
private counsel.
Calvin lastly argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
reconsideration of an October 24, 2018 decision to deny Calvin’s request to be
- 26 -
No. 79243-1-I/27
released on bond following his conviction. Calvin argues that the trial court erred
in finding his motion untimely. But neither Calvin’s motion nor any post-judgment
order can be found in the record before this court. We therefore decline to address
this argument. See State v. Stockton, 97 Wn.2d 528, 530, 647 P.2d 21 (1982)
(matters referred to in brief but not included in record cannot be considered on
appeal).
We affirm Calvin’s convictions and sentence.
WE CONCUR:
- 27 -