State Of Washington, V. Benjamin Salofi Asaeli ( 2021 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 25, 2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 54035-5-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BENJAMIN SALOFI ASAELI,
Appellant.
MAXA, J. – Benjamin Asaeli appeals the superior court’s denial of his postconviction CrR
4.7 motion for discovery materials. We hold that CrR 4.7 applies only to procedures before trial,
and that Asaeli has not shown a due process right to postconviction discovery. Accordingly, we
affirm the superior court’s order denying Asaeli’s motion.
FACTS
In 2006, a jury found Asaeli guilty of first degree murder by extreme indifference, second
degree felony murder, first degree assault, and possession of a stolen firearm. This court
affirmed Asaeli’s convictions on direct appeal. State v. Asaeli, 150 Wn. App. 543, 208 P.3d
1136 (2009). The mandate was issued on November 17, 2009.
In 2019, Asaeli filed a CrR 4.7 motion to produce discovery in the superior court. He
requested (1) all correspondence between the prosecution and defense, (2) documentation that
shows proof of his criminal history, (3) physical or tangible objects in the State’s possession that
may be relevant to his innocence or guilt, (4) any documents or records that questions or raises
No. 54035-5-II
doubts about the accuracy or reliability of any scientific and/or expert testing, (5) criminal
records of all of the State’s witness, (6) any evidence that may undermine the credibility of any
State witness, (7) all exculpatory evidence that the State may possess, (8) any mitigating
evidence regarding his guilt, and (9) any statements of non-witnesses obtained by the State in
preparing its case in chief.
The superior court originally transferred the matter to this court as a personal restraint
petition. This court rejected the transfer and remanded to the superior court because Asaeli’s
motion was not bought under CrR 7.8. Order Rejecting Transfer, In re Pers. Restraint of Asaeli,
No. 53598-0-II (Wash. Ct. App. June 11, 2019).
The superior court subsequently denied Asaeli’s motion, concluding that CrR 4.7 applies
to pretrial discovery procedures and not to postconviction proceedings. Asaeli appeals the
superior court’s order denying his motion for discovery materials.
ANALYSIS
Asaeli argues that the superior court erred by denying his postconviction CrR 4.7 motion
for the State to produce discovery materials. We disagree.
In general, we review discovery decisions based on CrR 4.7 for abuse of discretion. State
v. Vance, 184 Wn. App. 902, 911, 339 P.3d 245 (2014). However, whether a court rule applies
to a particular fact scenario is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Kindsvogel, 149
Wn.2d 477, 480, 69 P.3d 870 (2003).
We apply the same principles to interpreting court rules that we apply to interpreting
statues. State v. Mankin, 158 Wn. App. 111, 122, 241 P.3d 421 (2010). The primary goal of
court rule interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the Supreme Court’s intent. State v.
Waldon, 148 Wn. App. 952, 962, 202 P.3d 325 (2009). This requires looking at the plain
2
No. 54035-5-II
language of the rule, the context of the rule, related provisions, and the rule’s scheme as a whole.
State v. Reisert, 16 Wn. App. 2d 321, 324, 480 P.3d 1151 (2021). As part of this process, we
may look to the rule’s title to assist in interpreting a court rule. See id. at 325. When words in a
court rule are plain and unambiguous, further interpretation is not necessary and we apply the
court rule as written. Mankin, 158 Wn. App. at 122.
CrR 4.7 appears in Title 4 of the Superior Court Criminal Rules, which is titled
“Procedures Prior to Trial.” This title indicates that the Supreme Court intended CrR 4.7 to
apply to pretrial discovery procedures, not after a defendant has been convicted. In addition,
CrR 4.7(a)(1), which addresses the prosecutor’s discovery obligations, states that discovery
material must be produced no later than the omnibus hearing. The omnibus hearing obviously is
a pretrial hearing. Nothing in CrR 4.7 states or even suggests that its provisions apply after
conviction.
We conclude that CrR 4.7 does not apply to postconviction proceedings. Therefore,
Asaeli had no right to file a motion for discovery under CrR 4.7.
The Supreme Court in In re Personal Restraint of Gentry addressed a postconviction
motion for discovery from the standpoint of due process. 137 Wn.2d 378, 390-91, 972 P.2d
1250 (1999). The court stated, “From a due process standpoint, prisoners seeking postconviction
relief are not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course, but are limited to discovery
only to the extent the prisoner can show good cause to believe the discovery would prove
entitlement to relief.” Id. Here, Asaeli has not shown good cause for obtaining discovery.
Therefore, due process did not support his motion.
Because Asaeli’s CrR 4.7 motion was filed 13 years after he was convicted at trial, we
hold that the superior court did not err in denying the motion for discovery materials.
3
No. 54035-5-II
CONCLUSION
We affirm the superior court’s denial of Asaeli’s postconviction CrR 4.7 motion for
discovery materials.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
MAXA, P.J.
We concur:
CRUSER, J.
VELJACIC, J.
4