State Of Washington, V. William Allingham ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 81739-6
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WILLIAM DAVID ALLINGHAM,
Appellant.
APPELWICK, J. — Allingham appeals from a judgment and sentence for
second degree assault. First, he argues prosecutorial misconduct denied him his
right to a fair trial. Next, he argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to the alleged misconduct. Finally, he argues supervision fees were entered
in error. We remand to strike the supervision fees and affirm on all other grounds.
FACTS
William Allingham was convicted of second degree assault. The victim was
his wife, K.A.
At the trial, the jury heard three phone calls Allingham made to K.A. from
jail. In the calls, Allingham angrily tells K.A. not to talk to the prosecutor, saying
they are “trying to fucking put me in jail.” He asks her whose side she is on.
No. 81739-6-I/2
During closing argument, defense counsel attempted to explain Allingham’s
anger on the phone calls, arguing he was,
looking at prison time, and here [K.A.] is saying, “Oh, it’s going to be
fine. Prosecutor seems nice. I feel like it’s all going to be okay.”
This contradicts what [Allingham’s] experience is at the time,
which is that his wife is accusing—has accused him of assault and
he’s looking at prison time. So he tells her this, inartfully, but he tells
her.
In rebuttal, the prosecutor reminded the jury that they were instructed not to
consider punishment and argued there was no evidence that Allingham would be
incarcerated. Defense counsel did not object.
After the jury found him guilty, the court found Allingham indigent for the
purposes of appeal. The court waived the nonmandatory legal financial obligations
(LFOs). The judgment and sentence stated that Allingham must pay supervision
fees as determined by the Department of Corrections.
Allingham appeals.
DISCUSSION
First, Allingham argues prosecutorial misconduct denied him his right to a
fair trial. Next, he argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
the alleged misconduct. Finally, he argues the supervision fees were entered in
error.
I. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Allingham argues the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the
law regarding the jury’s consideration of Allingham’s motivation to make the calls
out of fear of a lengthy prison sentence.
2
No. 81739-6-I/3
The right to a fair trial is a fundamental liberty secured by the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22
of the Washington State Constitution. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503, 96
S. Ct. 1691, 48 L. Ed.2 d 126 (1976); In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d
696, 703, 286 P.3d 673 (2012). Prosecutorial misconduct may constitute a
deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Glasmann, 175
Wn.2d at 703-04.
To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant bears the
burden of showing the prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial.
State v. Ish, 170 Wn.2d 189, 195, 241 P.3d 389 (2010). To establish prejudice,
the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the error affected the jury
verdict. Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d at 704. The trial judge is generally in the best
position to determine whether the prosecutor’s actions were improper and whether,
under the circumstances, they were prejudicial. Ish, 170 Wn.2d at 195-96. So, we
review allegations of prosecutorial misconduct for abuse of discretion. Id. at 195.
Here, the prosecutor’s remarks were not improper. In closing, defense
counsel suggested Allingham’s terse phone calls to the victim were a response to
his possible incarceration. In rebuttal, the prosecutor stated,
[D]efense got up here and tried to talk about how, you know, of
course the defendant was angry because he’s looking at prison time.
I need to remind you that in the jury instructions, you are specifically
instructed that you are not to consider punishment at all, except
insofar as much [as] it is going to make you careful in your decision.
Punishment is not your job. That’s up to the judge. There is no
evidence that he is in fact looking at prison time. That is just his own
statements.
3
No. 81739-6-I/4
The court’s instructions to the jury provided,
You have nothing what[so]ever to do with any punishment that
may be imposed in case of a violation of the law. You may not
consider the fact that punishment may follow conviction except
insofar as it may tend to make you careful.
The prosecutor’s remarks were a proper statement of the law. Generally,
the jury’s function is to find the facts, not to consider sentencing. State v. Rafay,
168 Wn. App. 734, 776-77, 285 P.3d (2012). Further, the jurors heard the same
statement of the law through the court’s instructions. Jurors are presumed to follow
the court’s instructions. State v. Henson, 11 Wn. App. 2d 97, 105, 451 P.3d 1127(2019).
Allingham argues his belief he could be incarcerated went to his state of
mind in making the calls. But, the prosecutor acknowledged as much when
reminding the jury that there was no evidence to support this belief, only defense
counsel’s closing argument. Nothing in the challenged remarks amounts to
prosecutorial misconduct.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Next, Allingham argues defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object
to the alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to effective assistance of
counsel under our state and federal constitutions. U.S. CONST. amend. VI; CONST.
art. I, § 22; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 680, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.
Ed. 2d 674 (1984). To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the
defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the
4
No. 81739-6-I/5
defendant was prejudiced by that deficiency. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694;
In re Pers. Restraint of Crace, 174 Wn.2d 835, 840, 280 P.3d 1102 (2012). To
combat the biases of hindsight, our scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly
deferential and we strongly presume reasonableness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689;
In re Pers. Restraint of Lui, 188 Wn.2d 525, 539, 397 P.3d 90 (2017). Only in
egregious circumstances will the failure to object to closing argument constitute
incompetence of counsel justifying reversal. State v. Smiley, 195 Wn. App. 185,
197, 379 P.3d 149 (2016).
As the statements at issue do not constitute prosecutorial misconduct,
defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to them. Allingham raises
no other grounds on which defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of
counsel. Allingham has not demonstrated that counsel’s performance was
deficient, nor that he was prejudiced by that deficiency.
III. Community Custody Supervision Fees
Finally, Allingham asserts that the trial court imposed community custody
supervision fees in error because the trial court intended to impose only mandatory
fees.
RCW 9.94A.703(2) provides that “[u]nless waived by the court, as part of
any term of community custody, the court shall order an offender to: . . . (d) Pay
supervision fees as determined by the department.” As the supervision fees are
waivable by the trial court, they are discretionary LFOs. State v. Dillon, 12 Wn.
App. 2d 133, 152, 456 P.3d 1199, review denied, 195 Wn.2d 1022, 464 P.3d 1985
No. 81739-6-I/6
(2020). Allingham is indigent. Because the record indicates the court intended to
impose only mandatory LFOs, the proper remedy is to strike the community
custody supervision fee. See id. at 152-53.
We remand to strike the supervision fees and affirm on all other grounds.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
6
No. 81739-6-I/1
State v. Allingham, No. 81739-6-I
Dwyer, J. (concurring) — The admissibility of evidence is informed and controlled
by the Rules of Evidence. It is not controlled by a pattern concluding instruction. The
trial judge and the prosecutor in this case lost sight of this.
It is simply not so that it is always true that jurors may not consider evidence of
the possibility of future criminal punishment only insofar as it may tend to make them
careful. Rather, the purposes for which a juror may consider such evidence is
determined by the reason for its admissibility. And, as stated, such admissibility is
controlled by the Rules of Evidence.
As we recently observed:
The trial court also erred by accepting the State’s contention that
evidence of potential consequences that flow from a defendant’s
conviction can never be presented to a jury. This is not so. To the
contrary. A witness’s subjective belief that a defendant might face a
specific consequence if the witness complains to the police or testifies at
trial is often a subject raised at trial. For example, in cases involving sex
crimes in which victims or witnesses either delayed reporting the crimes or
made prior statements inconsistent with their testimony, courts have
regularly allowed prosecutors to elicit testimony as to what consequences
the witnesses believed might follow arrest or conviction and, in so doing,
explain to juries why the witnesses either delayed reporting or made
subsequent inconsistent statements. See, e.g., State v. Petrich, 101
Wn.2d 566, 568, 683 P.2d 173 (1984) (victim who delayed reporting
“explained that [accused] had told her not to tell, that she feared she
would not be believed or loved if she told, and that her grandfather would
go to jail”), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d
403, 756 P.2d 105 (1988); State v. Baker, 162 Wn. App. 468, 470-71, 259
P.3d 270 (2011) (victim testified to not calling police after domestic
violence incident “because she loved [defendant] and did not want to get
him in trouble”); State v. Nieto, 119 Wn. App. 157, 160, 79 P.3d 473(2003) (witness “said she lied in her statement . . . because [police] led her
to believe [defendant] would be sentenced to a longer jail term if she did
1
No. 81739-6-I/2
not write a statement”). Thus, the probative value of the proffered
testimony was greater than that assigned by the trial court.
State v. Bedada, 13 Wn. App. 2d 185, 203-04, 463 P.3d 125 (2020) (footnote omitted).
This argument appears to stem from the standard jury instruction
reading:
You have nothing whatever to do with any punishment that may
be imposed in case of a violation of the law. You may not
consider the fact that punishment may follow conviction except
insofar as it may tend to make you careful.
WPIC 1.02.[1] That instruction was given here.
Bedada, 13 Wn. App. 2d at 203 n.7.
Thus, Allingham’s asserted explanation for his demeanor in the recorded
telephone calls with K.A. was admissible. He was entitled to argue from that to the jury.
And the standard concluding instruction should have been altered to reflect the
evidentiary ruling.
But the majority is correct in concluding that, in light of how the defense case was
tried and in light of the defense presentation on appeal, none of the asserted claims of
error are meritorious. The majority correctly analyzes the particular errors assigned on
the bases on which they have been presented to us.
Thus, I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the judgment must be affirmed.
1 11 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 1.02, at 21-22
(4th ed. 2016).
2