State Of Washington v. Lonnie Ray Carter ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
cf)
1-3
4::=0 --t
oti
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 75413-1-1 ca
CP-ri
CO -A "I
Respondent, DIVISION ONE
4.nva
V. =r1
1570?
LONNIE RAY CARTER, UNPUBLISHED OPINION Sr.kI
Appellant. FILED: February 12, 2018
PER CURIAM. Lonnie Ray Carter appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to misdemeanor harassment, forgery, and possession of
cocaine. Carter's counsel on appeal contends, and the State concedes, that
community custody on the forgery sentence was unauthorized, the no-contact
provisions regarding Deputy Crawley on the drug and forgery counts are not
crime-related, the no-contact provision as to Harpal Bual on the drug count is not
crime-related, and the judgment and sentence contains scrivener's errors in its
statutory citations. We accept the State's concessions and remand with
instructions to amend the judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion.
No. 75413-1-1/2
In a Statement of Additional Grounds,1 Carter contends his counsel
"labored under an actual conflict of interest." SAG at 1. He contends the conflict
resulted in a sentence that failed to provide him sufficient security from alleged
contracts for his murder. He alleges his trial counsel knew he wanted a sentence
that could be served in protective custody because he "is a 'Target' for 'Murder"
Igor being a 'Government Informant[1" SAG at 2. He claims counsel failed to
inform hirn that a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative(DOSA)could not be
served in the prison's Intensive Management Unit or other forms of protective
custody. He concludes conflict-free counsel would have obtained a sentence
providing the protection he sought.
Carter's claim involves matters largely outside the record and is therefore
reviewable only in a personal restraint petition. State v. McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d
322, 338, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). The record contains no declarations regarding
his alleged conversations with counsel. Nor does his quotation from the plea
hearing reveal the nature of any discussions with counsel. Carter did file a
motion to discharge counsel the day before sentencing, but that motion involved
counsel's pretrial conduct, not his conduct at sentencing, and is based in part on
matters outside this court's record.
Carter also contends the prosecutor and his trial counsel violated his
Eighth Amendment rights because they acted "with 'deliberate indifference' and a
1 Carter filed the same Statement of Additional Grounds in this appeal and appeal
number 75414-9. The appeals are taken from a single plea and sentencing hearing
encompassing two sets of convictions. Because the same attorney represented Carter on all of
the matters before the court in those hearings, and because the Statements of Additional
Grounds allege that counsel had a conflict of interest, we address the SAG in both appeals.
- 2-
No. 75413-1-1/3
disregard of Pre-trial Detainee Carter's serious safety concerns(4" SAG at 2.
This claim involves matters outside the record, appears to be moot, and is, in any
event, too conclusory to merit review under RAP 10.10(c).
Affirmed in part and remanded in part for amendment of the judgment and
sentence.
For the Court: -rit4/1-4R71 A c5"
3