State Of Washington, V Staci Lei Allison ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                 ILED
    011 RT OF APPEALS
    2013 DEC — 3   AN 9: 21
    S' rW E OF VVASH1 N Gf0a 1
    IfPUY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION II
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,
    No. 42902 -1 - II
    Respondent,                            Consolidated with
    V.                                                                No. 43292 -7 -II
    STACI LEA ALLISON,                                                      UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    Appellant,
    MAXA, J. —   Staci Allison appeals her convictions of first degree theft and money
    laundering. Allison claims that ( 1) the trial court erred in not dismissing the case because of
    prosecutorial mismanagement and ( 2) the money laundering statute, RCW 9A.83. 020, is
    unconstitutional because it encompasses more than one subject. She also claims that the
    sentencing court imposed restitution for losses not causally connected to her charged crimes. We
    affirm.
    FACTS
    Background
    Allison worked for the Clallam County Sheriff' s Office as a records specialist assigned to
    the   evidence room.'    Only three people had access to the evidence room: Allison, her supervisor
    Chris James, and James' s supervisor Alice Hoffman.
    1
    According to Chief Civil Deputy Alice Hoffman, " the records specialist assigned to the
    evidence room had full management responsibilities and authority over everything.to do with
    that   room."   Report   of   Proceedings ( Oct. 18, 2011)   at   48.
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated with No.4329274I
    On November 27, 2006, James was looking for the keys to an impounded car. When she
    could not find the keys on the keyboard in the evidence room, James began looking through the
    office and was upset by the disorganization. At one point she picked up a blue tub or bin of
    currency envelopes and money fell out of an envelope that should have been sealed. When it
    became clear that money was missing, the sheriff' s office contacted the Washington State Patrol
    WSP) to investigate.
    Lead WSP Detective Steven Stockwell later testified that he investigated all of the open
    currency   envelopes   in the blue tub   and   found that $ 51, 905. 33   was   missing. Stockwell learned
    from Hoffman that unauthorized database deletions had been made to the WSP' s " AEGIS"
    system. He checked the security logs, which showed that Allison was present on the day and
    during those times that the database records were deleted. He also noted that neither Hoffman
    nor James was present in the evidence room during the times the database records were deleted.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Patrick Gahan performed a financial
    analysis of Allison' s records. He examined those records for a 50 -month period, which began
    five months prior to Allison' s employment with the sheriff' s office. According to Gahan' s
    findings, Allison had a negative bank account balance at the end of two thirds of the 50 months,
    incurred an average of eight overdraft charges per month, and consistently took out " payday"
    loans to cover her expenses. However, there were no payday loans for the period from May
    2003 until May 2006. During this period, Allison deposited about $9, 000 that was not
    attributable to any income source. Gahan noted that during this same period Allison took three
    trips to Seoul, South Korea, and one trip to Disneyland, but had no transactions associated with
    these trips. He also reported that Allison' s then -
    boyfriend reported that Allison had reimbursed
    him for the trips with cash.
    2
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated with No.432927 -II
    The sheriff' s office relied on the AEGIS computer system to track the evidence from the
    time it came into the sheriff' s office until the time it was disposed of or returned to its owner.
    According to the AEGIS log files, Allison had deleted 49 entries despite a rule that no entries
    ever were to be deleted. In fact, deleting such records violated state law. Further, Allison
    deleted those records one day before a scheduled state audit. Hoffman later explained that the
    deleted records would not have appeared on the auditor' s list and, consequently, the auditor
    would not have known to check them.
    The State charged Allison with first degree theft and money laundering.
    Procedural History
    Trial was scheduled for September 13, 2010. During initial discovery the State produced
    about 1, 800 pages of documents. In that material, defense counsel found pages 8 and 927 of a
    diary Allison kept at work detailing procedural problems. Defense counsel requested that the
    State produce the entire diary on August 4, 2010, and the State provided it on August 12, 2010.
    At the same time, the State produced another 800 pages of discovery that it had possessed but not
    given to the defense.
    On September 10, 2010, the State sent defense counsel an e -mail explaining that it had
    discovered another box containing a summary of the state audit and another 1, 000 pages of new
    discovery. On the first day of the scheduled trial, the State gave that summary to defense
    counsel, agreed to provide the supporting materials as soon as she got them, and revealed that
    WSP Detective Don Kelly had helped clean up the evidence room after the WSP audit and
    discovered unaccounted for cash.
    3
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated with No.432927 -II
    Allison made a motion under CrR 8. 3 to dismiss based on government mismanagement.
    The trial court denied the motion until the parties could examine the new material and continued
    the trial to October 11, 2010. This new date was within the October 13 time for trial deadline.
    On October 1, 2010, defense counsel requested a continuance because he was still cross
    indexing the 1, 000 pages of WSP support materials and because he had not yet received Don
    Kelly' s formal report. He also requested enough time to file a brief in support of his motion to
    dismiss and file a motion to disqualify the prosecutor handling the case because Don Kelly was
    her husband.
    On January 13, 2011, the trial court requested additional briefing on the motion to
    dismiss   and reset   the trial date for    February   14, 2011.   On January 27, 2011, the trial court issued
    a memorandum opinion denying the motion to dismiss, ruling, in part:
    It is frustrating to this court and no doubt to the parties that discovery
    which should have been disclosed early on was not. Unlike [ Sherman] [21 however,
    it does not appear that there was any willful intent or malfeasance involved in the
    materials not being discovered. It is clear that there is misfeasance on the part of
    law enforcement, and, perhaps mismanagement by the Prosecuting Attorney's
    office for not determining at an earlier date that not all likely discovery was
    available. Nevertheless this is a complex case involving thousands of documents
    of   discovery ( or   so   the Court   has been told), a great deal of forensic accounting
    and performance auditing. There have been numerous continuances of the trial.
    Some     necessitated      by   the Defendant' s   difficulty   in obtaining   counsel,   others
    necessitated by the nature of the case, and occasionally by defense counsel' s
    illness. The State objected only to the last continuance requested and either did
    not object or agreed to the others to accommodate the defense. The reset on the
    day of trial was within speedy trial limits. The executive summary contained the
    gist of the relevant testimony. Defense then requested additional time which was
    granted. This Court is granted some discretion in making a determination. Under
    the totality of the circumstances the Court does not feel that a dismissal of the
    case is warranted. While the facts causing the delay in the case are unfortunate,
    the Court does not find them so egregious as to warrant the extraordinary remedy
    2 State v. Sherman, 
    59 Wash. App. 763
    , 
    801 P.2d 274
    (1990).
    M
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated withNo.432927 -
    II
    of   dismissal. A trial on the merits by fully prepared counsel can resolve
    significant issues of prejudice to the fact finding function. Accordingly the
    Motion to Dismiss on the basis of the late discovery is denied.
    Suppl. Clerk' s Papers at 50 -51.
    On February 1, 2011, the trial court found no evidence that a genuine conflict existed and
    denied the motion to disqualify the prosecuting attorney. Nonetheless, a different attorney
    assumed responsibility for.the case. On September 15, 2011, the State filed an amended
    information additionally charging the theft as a major economic offense, justifying an
    exceptional sentence.
    Trial and Restitution
    A four -
    day jury trial began   on   October 17, 2011. Allison testified that she deleted the
    AEGIS records at James' s behest because they were testing the system. She also explained that
    she stopped taking out payday loans because she and her ex- husband were sharing a home and
    expenses at that time. Regarding the trips to South Korea and Disneyland, Allison explained that
    her then -
    boyfriend had paid for the trips and she otherwise would not have been able to go.
    The jury found Allison guilty as charged and found that the first degree theft was a major
    economic offense. The sentencing court imposed an exceptional 36 -month sentence and,
    following a restitution hearing, ordered Allison to pay $51, 905. 30 in restitution, the full amount
    of money the WSP audit determined was missing.
    ANALYSIS
    A.    PROSECUTORIAL MISMANAGEMENT
    Allison contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to dismiss
    under CrR 8. 3( b) for prosecutorial mismanagement. She argues that the State' s late disclosures
    of voluminous documentary evidence forced her to request a postponement to enable counsel to
    5
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated with No.432927 -II
    get up to speed, which forced her to make a choice between her right to a speedy trial and her
    right to the effective assistance of counsel. We disagree that the trial court abused its discretion
    in denying the motion to dismiss.
    CrR 8. 3( b) states:
    The court, in the furtherance of justice, after notice and hearing, may dismiss any
    criminal prosecution due to arbitrary action or governmental misconduct when
    there has been prejudice to the rights of the accused which materially affect the
    accused' s right to a fair trial. The court shall set forth its reasons in a written
    order.
    Before   a   trial   court   may dismiss   charges under     CrR 8. 3( b),   the defendant must show by a
    preponderance of the evidence ( 1) arbitrary action or governmental misconduct and ( 2) prejudice
    affecting the defendant' s right to a fair trial. State v. Rohrich, 
    149 Wash. 2d 647
    , 654, 
    71 P.3d 638
    2003).    The governmental misconduct need not be evil or dishonest; simple mismanagement is
    sufficient.   State    v.   Blackwell, 
    120 Wash. 2d 822
    , 831, 
    845 P.2d 1017
    ( 1993).                  And, the defendant
    must show actual prejudice, not merely speculative prejudice affecting his right to a fair trial.
    
    Rorich, 149 Wash. 2d at 657
    . Dismissing charges under CrR 8. 3( b) is an
    extraordinary remedy.' "             State v. 
    Rohrich, 149 Wash. 2d at 658
    ( quoting State v. Baker, 
    78 Wash. 2d 327
    , 332, 
    474 P.2d 254
    ( 1970)).                It is limited to those " `` truly egregious cases of
    mismanagement or misconduct.' "                State   v.   Wilson, 
    149 Wash. 2d 1
    , 9, 
    65 P.3d 657
    ( 2003) ( quoting
    State v. Duggins, 
    68 Wash. App. 396
    , 401, 
    844 P.2d 441
    , aff'd, 
    121 Wash. 2d 524
    , 
    852 P.2d 294
    1993)).    The trial       court should resort   to dismissal      under   CrR 8. 3( b) "   only as a last resort."
    
    Wilson, 149 Wash. 2d at 12
    . We review the trial court's decision denying a motion to dismiss under
    CrR 8. 3 for an abuse of discretion, which it is when the decision was manifestly unreasonable,
    based on untenable grounds, or made for untenable reasons. State v. Michielli, 
    132 Wash. 2d 229
    ,
    240, 
    937 P.2d 587
    ( 1997); 
    Blackwell, 120 Wash. 2d at 830
    .
    2
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated with No.432927 -II
    Here we find no abuse of discretion. First, the record reflects that there was no
    gamesmanship" involved in the State' s delayed production of documents. Instead, the
    prosecutor worked diligently to locate further discovery that was beneficial to Allison. In fact,
    the prosecutor pursued discoverable materials even after being told none existed. In Wilson, our
    Supreme Court found no governmental misconduct when the prosecutor acted diligently to set up
    last- minute    witness   interviews   and   there   was no evidence of unfair   
    gamesmanship. 149 Wash. 2d at 10
    -11.   By contrast, the facts here are unlike in Michielli, where the prosecutor waited until
    five days before trial before adding         new charges without an explanation or      
    justification. 132 Wash. 2d at 243
    -44.
    Second, as the trial court noted, this was a complicated case involving thousands of pages
    of documents and forensic analysis. Although the delays in producing documents were
    unfortunate, there is no indication of any egregious conduct that caused the delays. This case is
    unlike State v. Brooks, where this court upheld the trial court' s dismissal because of "severe
    governmental mismanagement."             149 Wn.       App.   373, 393, 
    203 P.3d 397
    ( 2009). There, the State
    failed to timely provide extensive material information, including the 60 -page victim' s
    statement, the defendant' s statement to the police, the lead detective' s report, the entire police
    file, witness lists and statements, and multiple other documents routinely produced in discovery.
    
    Brooks, 149 Wash. App. at 376
    , 386 -87.
    Whether to dismiss charges based on prosecutorial mismanagement under CrR 8. 3( a)
    rests in the trial court' s discretion. Based on the record before us and the abuse of discretion
    standard of review, we cannot find that the trial court' s decision to allow the trial to continue was
    manifestly unreasonable.
    7
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated withNo.432927 -II
    B.      CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MONEY LAUNDERING STATUTE
    Allison argues that the money laundering statute, RCW 9A.83. 020, is unconstitutional
    because the legislature violated the " single subject" rule established in article H, section 19 of the
    Washington State Constitution. She argues that the same act creating the money laundering
    offense also reenacted and amended RCW 69. 50. 505, which governs the seizure and forfeiture of
    personal, real, and intangible property associated with the drug trade. She concludes that the
    legislation enacted two subjects by creating a criminal offense and a means for civil forfeiture.
    We disagree.
    Article II,   section       19     of our constitution provides, " No    bill shall embrace more than one
    subject, and     that   shall   be    expressed       in the title." " The single -subject rule aims to prevent the
    grouping of incompatible measures and to prevent `` logrolling,' which occurs when a measure is
    drafted such that a legislator or voter may be required to vote for something of which he or she
    disapproves in      order      to   secure approval of an unrelated          law." Wash. Ass' n for Substance Abuse
    and    Violence Prevention             v.   State, 
    174 Wash. 2d 642
    , 655, 
    278 P.3d 632
    ( 2012) ( citing
    Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587                        v.   State, 
    142 Wash. 2d 183
    , 212, 
    11 P.3d 762
    ( 2000), 
    27 P.3d 608
    ( 2001);       Wash. Fed'n ofState Emps. v. State, 
    127 Wash. 2d 544
    , 552, 
    901 P.2d 1028
    1995)).      We construe this provision liberally in favor of the legislation. Amalgamated 
    Transit, 142 Wash. 2d at 206
    .
    The 1992 legislative             act   is titled, " Money   Laundering" and therefore is a general, not a
    restrictive title. LAWS OF 1992, ch. 210, at 946; see Wash. Ass' 
    n, 174 Wash. 2d at 655
    ( discussing
    general and restrictive             titles).    When a title is general, the legislation is constitutional if there is
    some " `` rational       unity' " between the             general subject and    the incidental subdivisions.       Wash.
    Ass'   
    n, 174 Wash. 2d at 656
    ( internal        quotation marks omitted) ( quoting     State   v.   Grisby,   97 Wn.2d
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated with No.432927 -II
    493, 498, 
    647 P.2d 6
    ( 1982)).            Rational unity exists when matters within the body are germane to
    the title   and   the   provisions are germane              to   one another.      Wash. Ass' 
    n, 174 Wash. 2d at 656
    .
    Allison fails to     overcome       the       presumption       that this legislation is   constitutional.   Section 1
    of the act contains definitions, section 2 defines the elements of the crime of money laundering,
    section 3 provides the procedure for seizing and forfeiting the proceeds of the criminal offense,
    section 4 protects officials from liability for lawfully enforcing the chapter, section 5 defines
    what is subject to seizure and forfeiture, section 6 provides further definitions, and section 7
    explains that the new provisions ( sections 1 through 4) will be codified in Title 9A RCW. All of
    these provisions related to the money laundering title, and all of the provisions are germane to
    one another. The enactment is not unconstitutional. Allison' s claim fails.
    C.          RESTITUTION
    Allison contends that the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing $51, 905. 33
    in   restitution when      the   evidence at         trial connected        her activity to only $ 9, 800 in losses. She
    argues that two others also had access to the evidence room, the State did not show significant
    changes in her lifestyle, it presented evidence of only $9, 000 in unexplained deposits, and the lax
    procedural safeguards governing the evidence room undermined the State' s claim that she was
    solely responsible for the losses. We disagree.
    RCW 9. 94A.753( 3) provides that a sentencing court may impose restitution following a
    criminal conviction           that is " based        on   easily   ascertainable    damages."    This statute allows broad
    discretion ranging from " none ( in some extraordinary circumstances) up to double the offender' s
    gain or     the   victim' s   loss."    State   v.   Kinneman, 
    155 Wash. 2d 272
    , 282, 
    119 P.3d 350
    ( 2005). The
    State need not prove the damages with certainty and it need only prove them by a preponderance
    of   the   evidence.     State   v.    Tobin, 132 Wn.            App.   161, 173 - 74, 
    130 P.3d 426
    ( 2006),    aff'd, 161
    0
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated with No.432927 -II
    Wn.2d 517, 
    166 P.3d 1167
    ( 2007).          It must also prove that the losses are causally connected to
    the   crime charged.   State   v.   Griffith, 
    164 Wash. 2d 960
    , 965, 
    195 P.3d 506
    ( 2008). We review a
    sentencing court' s decision setting restitution for an abuse of discretion. 
    Tobin, 132 Wash. App. at 173
    .
    There was no abuse of discretion here. The WSP audit of the items in the blue tub next to
    Allison' s workstation found that $51, 905. 33 was missing. The evidence showed that Allison
    was the primary custodian of the evidence room. The evidence also showed that Allison deleted
    49 records from the computer system the day before the state audit. Of these 49 deleted records,
    16 related to items in the blue tub, totaling $9, 802. 19. And while the evidence only showed
    about $ 9, 000 in unexplained deposits to Allison' s bank account, there also was evidence that she
    travelled to South Korea three times and to Disneyland without expense and for two years
    stopped relying on payday loans to pay her basic living expenses. Under these circumstances,
    we cannot say that the sentencing court abused its discretion in finding a causal link between the
    criminal activity and the damages and in imposing the entire loss as restitution.
    10
    No. 42902 -1 - II, consolidated with No.432927 -II
    We affirm Allison' s conviction and the trial court' s restitution order.
    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, J.
    1"
    S HINDLER, J.
    liLd-      L. /
    11