State of Washington v. Antonio Abonza ( 2020 )

FILED
JULY 28, 2020
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. 36539-5-III
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
ANTONIO ABONZA, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — Antonio Abonza appeals from a conviction for third degree rape,
arguing that the court erred by denying his request to sever charges. We affirm the
conviction and remand to strike the criminal filing fee from the judgment.
FACTS
The relevant facts are largely procedural, so only a brief description of the two
incidents is necessary. The rape occurred April 14, 2018, when Abonza had sexual
relations with a sleeping woman in her apartment and continued to force himself on her
after she awoke and told him to stop. He also was charged with first degree criminal
trespass at the same location 18 days later for entering the apartment in the middle of the
night. The two matters were joined for trial.
No. 36539-5-III
State v. Abonza
Mr. Abonza moved to sever the counts prior to trial, arguing that it was unduly
prejudicial to try them together. At the conclusion of the pretrial hearing, the court
denied the motion. On the morning of the first day of the jury trial, the defense renewed
the motion to sever. The court again denied the request.1
Mr. Abonza then pleaded guilty to the criminal trespass charge. The State sought
clarification of the admissibility of the trespass incident under ER 404(b). The trial court
ruled that the evidence was admissible for limited purposes.2 The matter then proceeded
to jury trial. The victim primarily testified about the rape incident and only briefly about
the subsequent trespass. The victim’s two roommates testified concerning the trespass.
Mr. Abonza testified in his own behalf that the couple engaged in consensual sexual
relations until she stated that it was uncomfortable and he stopped. He also said that he
came to the house on May 2 because he needed to talk to the victim after learning she
was upset about their previous encounter.
The jury convicted Mr. Abonza of third degree rape. After vacating the original
sentence, the court imposed concurrent 12 month terms on the two counts at a
resentencing. Mr. Abonza timely appealed to this court. A panel considered his appeal
without conducting argument.
1
The court entered written findings concerning the severance hearing following
trial.
2
The court also gave a written limiting instruction to the jury.
2
No. 36539-5-III
State v. Abonza
ANALYSIS
This appeal challenges the severance rulings and the imposition of the $200
criminal filing fee at sentencing. The State concedes error on the filing fee and we accept
the concession. The trial court may not impose discretionary LFOs on indigent
defendants. State v. Ramirez, 191 Wash. 2d 732, 750, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). Accordingly,
we remand for the court to strike the filing fee.
The severance issue is before us in a strange posture. Mr. Abonza preserved the
severance issue by renewing it at the beginning of trial. CrR 4.4(a)(2).3 However, Mr.
Abonza created a de facto severance by pleading guilty to the trespass charge. Typically,
we review a decision whether to sever charges for abuse of discretion. State v.
Kalakosky, 121 Wash. 2d 525, 536, 852 P.2d 1064 (1993). Discretion is abused when it is
exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker,
79 Wash. 2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
It is the defendant’s burden to establish abuse of discretion by showing that “a trial
involving both counts would be so manifestly prejudicial as to outweigh the concern for
judicial economy.” State v. Bythrow, 114 Wash. 2d 713, 718, 790 P.2d 154 (1990). Factors
to be considered when analyzing a motion to sever include (1) whether the defendant was
3
“If a defendant’s pretrial motion for severance was overruled he may renew the
motion on the same ground before or at the close of all the evidence. Severance is
waived by failure to renew the motion.” CrR4.4(a)(2).
3
No. 36539-5-III
State v. Abonza
confounded in presenting separate defenses, (2) whether the jury might infer a criminal
disposition from the two offenses, and (3) whether the jury might cumulate evidence to
find guilt where it would otherwise not. Id. The remedy for improper joinder of offenses
is reversal for a new separate trial with the offenses severed. E.g., State v. Bluford, 188
Wash. 2d 298, 316, 393 P.3d 1219 (2017).
It is the remedy issue that is the sticking point in this case. Assuming that Mr.
Abonza showed that the court erred by denying his motion, the remedy would be a retrial
of the rape charge without the trespass charge. But he already received that remedy. The
two charges were not tried together due to his guilty plea on the gross misdemeanor
offense. He already has received the remedy he seeks in this appeal.
In actuality, his challenge should be directed to the evidence concerning the
trespassing incident used at the rape trial. The prosecutor properly noted that the
evidence presented an issue governed by ER 404(b) and obtained a pre-trial ruling
admitting the evidence. The defense does not assign error to that ruling, nor directly
challenge it on appeal except as a component of the severance challenge. Instead, he
treats an evidentiary issue as if it were a severance problem.
In light of the fact that the two charges were not tried together, Mr. Abonza cannot
show that he was prejudiced by the court’s severance rulings. Having already obtained
the remedy he would have obtained if the court had agreed with his severance motions,
he simply was not harmed.
4
No. 36539-5-III
State v. Abonza
The conviction is affirmed and the case remanded to strike the filing fee.
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.
_________________________________
Korsmo, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Pennell, C.J.
_________________________________
Siddoway, J.
5