State of Washington v. Paul Anthony Mcvay ( 2016 )

I
FILED
DECEMBER 22, 2016
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. 33343-4-111
)
Respondent, )
)
V. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
PAUL ANTHONY MCVAY, )
)
Appellant. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. - Paul Anthony McVay appeals his conviction for first
degree assault. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his
counsel's failure to object to the State amending the information. He argues had his
counsel objected, the trial court would have been required to not allow the amendment.
He contends his counsel's failure to object was deficient performance and he was
prejudiced. The State does not respond to McVay's arguments. We reverse.
FACTS
McVay was involved in a fight with Keyton Sykes, and Sykes suffered serious
puncture wounds. The State originally charged McVay with first degree assault under
RCW 9A.36.0l l(l)(a). That subjection required the State to prove McVay intended to
No. 33343-4-III
State v. McVay
inflict great bodily harm on Sykes with a deadly weapon. At trial, Mc Vay testified that he
stabbed Sykes with a pocket knife. The jury was unable to reach a decision and the trial
court declared a mistrial.
The State thereafter amended the information. The amendment included the
original means and a new alternative means for first degree assault. The new alternative
means cited RCW 9A.36.01 l(l)(c). That subsection required the State to prove McVay
intended to and actually did inflict great bodily harm on Sykes. McVay's counsel did not
object to the amended information. At trial, Mc Vay again took the stand and related the
same testimony as in his first trial.
The trial court instructed the second jury on both of the charged means for
committing first degree assault. The trial court also instructed the jury that it need not be
unanimous as to which of the alternative means is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as
long as each juror finds that either is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found
Mc Vay guilty of the charged offense. Mc Vay timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is an issue of constitutional magnitude
that may be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Kyllo, 166 Wash. 2d 856, 862,
215 P.3d 177 (2009). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
2
No. 33343-4-III
State v. McVay
defendant must show: (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficiency
prejudiced the defendant. Id.
Deficient performance is performance that falls below an objective standard of
reasonableness, and reasonable conduct for an attorney includes carrying out the duty to
research the relevant law. Id. Prejudice requires the defendant to prove there is a
reasonable probability that without counsel's deficient performance the outcome of the
proceedings would have been different. Id. A reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Counsel's performance is strongly
presumed to be reasonable. Ky/lo, 166 Wash. 2d at 862. Legitimate trial strategy or tactics
is not deficient. Id. at 863. This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel de novo. State v. Sutherby, 165 Wash. 2d 870, 883, 204 P.3d 916 (2009).
CrR 4.3.l(b)(3) is the mandatory joinder rule. It provides:
A defendant who has been tried for one offense may thereafter move to
dismiss a charge for a related offense, unless a motion for consolidation of
these offenses was previously denied or the right of consolidation was
waived as provided in this rule. The motion to dismiss must be made prior
to the second trial, and shall be granted unless the court determines that
because the prosecuting attorney was unaware of the facts constituting the
related offense or did not have sufficient evidence to warrant trying this
offense at the time of the first trial, or for some other reason, the ends of
justice would be defeated if the motion were granted.
3
No. 33343-4-111
State v. McVay
Mc Vay argues had his trial counsel objected to the State amending the information
to assert a new alternative means, the trial court would have been required to dismiss the
new alternative means as a matter of law. McVay is correct. See State v. Dallas, 126
Wash. 2d 324, 329, 892 P.2d 1082 (1995) (an amendment that adds a new alternative means
is a related offense within the meaning of the mandatory joinder rule).
Mc Vay argues, and the State does not dispute, that his counsel's failure to object
here was deficient performance. Because defense counsel is required to research the law,
failure to object when the objection would be sustained arguably is deficient performance.
See State v. Carter, 56 Wash. App. 217, 225, 783 P.2d 589 (1989); id. at 228 (Winsor, J.
dissenting) (majority and dissent disagree whether failure to object to an amendment that
violates the mandatory joinder rule is necessarily deficient performance).
Mc Vay further argues, and the State does not dispute, that his counsel's deficient
performance prejudiced him. He argues the difference between the two trials was that the
jury had two means to determine guilt, it was instructed it need not be unanimous as to the
means, and one of the means was improper. McVay, arguably, is correct.
We conclude McVay has sufficiently established he received ineffective assistance
of counsel. He is, therefore, entitled to a new trial based only on the initial information.
Reversed.
4
No. 33343-4-III
State v. McVay
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.
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
j
WE CONCUR:
Fe~
1
J
5
33343-4-III
KORSMO, J. (concurring in the result)-This appeal presents two questions that I
am uncertain whether we have addressed properly, but that is the fault of the respondent.
First, it is unclear to me that an alternative means of committing the same existing
charged offense, is a "related offense" for purposes of our mandatory joinder rule, CrR
4.3 .1 (b )(3 ). There is some authority that might be applied to this circumstance, although
that case is easily distinguishable. See State v. Russell, 101 Wn.2d 349,678 P.2d 332
(1984) (adding alternative charge of second degree felony murder before retrial).
The second problem I have is whether appellant has satisfied the standards of
Stricklandv. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
Counsel performs ineffectively when she errs to the point that it is below the standard of
care for the profession and that error actually prejudices her client. Id. at 687-688. The
primary case relied on by the appellant and the majority is not apropos here since Mr.
Mc Vay defended on a theory of self-defense. State v. Carter, 56 Wash. App. 217, 783 P .2d
589 ( 1989). In Carter, the prosecution added a charge of first degree assault prior to the
retrial of a charge of first degree robbery. A divided Division One panel determined that
No. 33343-4-111
State v. Mc Vay
counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the amendment. Id. at 225-226. In the
dissent, Judge Winsor believed the record was insufficient to allow the determination that
counsel had actually erred. Id. at 226-228. 1
Whether or not trial counsel erred here depends in large part on the answer to my
first question. Whether or not Mr. McVay's defense was actually prejudiced by the
additional means of committing first degree assault also is unclear. It was undisputed at
trial that Mr. Mc Vay stabbed the victim, resulting in serious injury. What was in dispute
was whether Mr. Mc Vay was justified in defending himself. It is highly unlikely that the
addition of the alternative means of committing the same crime was prejudicial to the
defense of the case. By claiming self-defense, Mr. McVay agreed that he had committed
the first degree assault and the only question was whether he had sufficient justification
for his actions. This is a far different situation than that in Carter or most other cases
where the addition of a new crime resulted in obvious prejudice--a conviction on an
additional offense with ensuing prejudicial consequences for the defendant.
We also should be wary of allowing charging document amendment issues to be
heard for the first time on appeal merely because the nonmoving party sometimes can
1
His view of the rule problem was supported by the fact that the Carter majority
had to adopt a new construction of a previously undefined portion of the mandatory
joinder rule. See Carter, 56 Wash. App. at 223 (adopting definition of "ends of justice"). It
is difficult to see how defense counsel was expected to anticipate the new definition when
it came time to challenge the proposed amendment in the trial court.
2
No. 33343-4-111
State v. McVay
accuse defense counsel of performing ineffectively. The standards governing
amendments are found in CrR 2.l(d) and its case law progeny, while mandatory joinder
is governed by a different standard found in CrR 4.3. I (b )(3). What is needed to justify an
amendment is different from what is needed to join a related offense.2 Without a
challenge being raised, the proper argument and record might not be made. The State
also is entitled to add new charges for a retrial when the interests of justice demands it,
but has no obligation to establish those interests when there is no objection to an
amendment. 3 Without that record, we cannot tell whether the mandatory joinder rule
truly has been violated. We also do not know what defense counsel's view of the
situation was at the time of amendment if the issue is not argued to the trial judge.
Accordingly, there may be times when this issue simply does not present a question of
manifest constitutional error.
Summing up, I have serious reservations whether Mr. Mc Vay has made his case
on appeal because, if his attorney actually erred by not challenging the amendment, it
does not seem that the self-defense case was prejudiced in the least. However, as the
2
This distinction was the legal issue that divided the panel in Carter.
3
The prudent prosecutor therefore should always present argument (and, where
appropriate, evidence) in support of an amendment when changing a charging document
before a retrial with the possibility this will later be treated as a joinder issues rather than
as an amendment problem. Similarly, the trial judge should demand that the interests of
justice be established before granting the amendment in this circumstance.
3
No. 33343-4-III
State v. Mc Vay
prosecutor has not bothered defending the appeal and Carter at least presents some
authority for granting relief, I concur in the result.
4