State Of Washington v. Bradley Michael Key

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON co the,
0 —ic-
c_. rn
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 76136-6-I c
-c-n r
Respondent, ) DIVISION ONE 2,-, r.,
=ti. L-•
)
71---
V. )
) UNPUBLISHED DECISION N3
BRADLEY MICHAEL KEY, ) —
)
Appellant. ) FILED: June 25, 2018
)
LEACH, J. — Bradley Key challenges his conviction and sentence for one
count of assault in the first degree and two counts of assault in the fourth degree.
First, he claims his right to conflict-free counsel under the Sixth Amendment to
the United States Constitution was violated because his attorney had previously
represented a witness. Second, he contends that a sidebar during voir dire
violated his constitutional public trial rights. Third, Key contends that the trial
court sentenced him based on an improper offender score. Because Key fails to
show his attorney had a disqualifying conflict of interest or that the sidebar
implicated his public trial rights, we affirm Key's conviction. But because the
State failed to prove the existence and comparability of prior out-of-state
convictions, we remand for resentencing.
No. 76136-6-1/ 2
FACTS
In April 2016, Donald Giddings rode his bicycle to a bus stop in Oak
Harbor, Washington. There, Giddings saw Key and asked him if he had a
cigarette lighter. Key responded, "If you're man enough to smoke, you ought to
be man enough to have a lighter." Giddings felt threatened and pulled out a
pocket knife, which he kept closed in his hand on top of the handlebars.
Giddings called Key a "punk bitch" and rode away on his bicycle to another bus
stop. Two other men were waiting at that bus stop.
Key followed Giddings to the second bus stop. Key approached Giddings
and demanded that he apologize. Giddings said, "I've done nothing wrong." He
took out his knife again, saying, "This is all I did." He then said, "I'm sorry"
multiple times.
Key struck Giddings on the side of the head. Key beat Giddings, kicking
him and stomping on his head and neck. The two men at the bus stop tried to
intervene. Key assaulted them as well—he wrestled one to the ground and
pushed the other.
After a trial, the jury convicted Key of assault in the first degree and two
counts of assault in the fourth degree. The trial court sentenced Key using an
offender score of five based on several foreign convictions. Key appeals his
conviction and sentence.
-2-
No. 76136-6-1 / 3
ANALYSIS
Conflict of Interest
First, Key contends that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel
because of his attorney's conflict of interest.
Matthew Montoya was appointed to represent Key. The first day of trial,
Montoya discovered that he had previously represented Giddings on another
matter. Montoya moved to withdraw from the case. Montoya told the court,
Your Honor, in discussing witnesses,[the prosecutor] brought to my
attention a case where Mr. Giddings has a prior conviction, but the
case was dismissed. However, it was dismissed after, I believe, a
stipulated order of continuance in municipal court. The lawyer of
record, however, was myself. I do not recall Mr. Giddings at all in
any way, shape, or form. I didn't recognize Mr. Giddings when I
saw the initial pictures when discovery was first provided. I did not
recognize him. I glanced over the exhibits this morning.
The court provided Key with independent counsel to consult about the conflict
issue. Giddings waived the possible conflict of interest. Key did not waive any
conflict and requested a new attorney. The trial court denied Montoya's motion
to withdraw. Key contends that denying this motion violated his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel.
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo.1 We also
review whether a conflict exists de novo.2 The State asserts that a decision to
1 State v. White,80 Wn. App. 406,410, 907 P.2d 310(1995).
2 State v. O'Neil, 198 Wash. App. 537, 542, 393 P.3d 1238 (2017).
-3-
No. 76136-6-1/4
disqualify an attorney for a conflict is reviewed for abuse of discretion.3 As we
observed in State v. O'Neil 4 "it may be true that withdrawal is, generally, a matter
of trial court discretion." "But, whether a conflict exists requiring withdrawal is a
question of law," and "[i]f a conflict creates a legal duty to withdraw, denying
withdrawal is an abuse of discretion."5 Because Key contends that a conflict
existed that required withdrawal, the appropriate standard of review is de novo.
"The right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution includes the right to conflict-free counsel."6 To show a violation of
the Sixth Amendment right to counsel free from conflict, the defendant must
demonstrate that his attorney had an actual conflict of interest that adversely
affected his attorney's performance.7 An actual conflict of interest exists when
the conflict affects counsel's performance "as opposed to a mere theoretical
division of loyalties."5 To show an actual conflict of interest deprived him of
3 See State v. Orozco, 144 Wash. App. 17, 20, 186 P.3d 1078 (2008). The
State also contends that the trial court's factual findings are verities on appeal
because Key does not challenge them. See State v. Horrace, 144 Wash. 2d 386,
391, 28 P.3d 753 (2001). But the trial court did not enter formal findings; it
merely explained the reasoning behind its decision to deny the motion to
withdraw.
4 198 Wash. App. 537, 543, 393 P.3d 1238 (2017) (distinguishing Orozco,
144 Wash. App. at 20).
5 O'Neil, 198 Wash. App. at 543.
6 O'Neil, 198 Wash. App. at 543; see also State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wash. 2d 559,
566,79 P.3d 432(2003).
7 Dhaliwal, 150 Wash. 2d at 570.
8 Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 171, 122 S. Ct. 1237, 152 L. Ed. 2d
291 (2002).
-4-
No. 76136-6-1/ 5
effective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his attorney had a
conflict of interest and the conflict adversely affected his attorney's performance.9
Because the court inquired into the conflict, Key asserts that he does not
need to show any "adverse effect" on his counsel's performance. But Key cites
no case that supports his position—that if he raises a potential conflict before
trial, the trial court must grant a motion to withdraw, even when its inquiry reveals
no evidence that the claimed conflict will adversely impact that attorney's
performance. Key distinguishes the leading cases that discuss conflict on the
basis of his objection and the trial court's inquiry. But he identifies no case that
recognizes different review standards for conflict decisions based on this
distinction.19 On the contrary, in Mickens v. Taylor" the United States Supreme
Court indicates otherwise.
Mickens stands for the rule that courts apply the same review standard,
whether or not the court inquired.12 Mickens observed that the trial court's failure
to be aware of or inquire into a conflict does not make it more likely that counsel's
9 Mickens, 535 U.S. at 174-75* State v. Reeder, 181 Wash. App. 897, 909,
330 P.3d 786(2014).
10 See Mickens, 535 U.S. at 165-68; Dhaliwal, 150 Wash. 2d at 566-71; State
v. Jensen, 125 Wash. App. 319, 330, 104 P.3d 717(2005).
11 535 U.S. 162, 122 S. Ct. 1237, 152 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2002).
12 Mickens, 535 U.S. at 173; see also State v. Chavez, 162 Wash. App. 431,
442, 257 P.3d 1114 (2011)(Korsmo, A.C.J., dissenting)(explaining that Mickens
"clarified that only an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's
performance violates the Sixth Amendment").
-5-
No. 76136-6-1/6
performance was significantly affected or in any other way render the verdict less
reliable.13 Likewise, a court's awareness of and inquiry into a conflict does not
alter the likelihood that the conflict affected counsel's performance. We note that
Mickens addressed a concern about incentivizing courts to make an appropriate
inquiry.14 In a dissent, Justice Souter observed that the majority's decision in
Mickens eliminated any sanction for failure to inquire.15 But the majority declined
to presume that trial judges needed more incentive to follow the law.16 It also
observed that the presumption of prejudice once a defendant shows an effect
upon representation offers some incentive to inquire into the matter and replace
a conflicted attorney if necessary in order to avoid reversa1.17 Following Mickens,
we decline Key's invitation to apply a different test when the defendant raises a
conflict issue and the court inquires into it.
Thus, to establish a Sixth Amendment violation, Key must show the
existence of a conflict and an adverse effect on Montoya's performance. Key
claims Montoya had a conflict under RPC 1.7 and RPC 1.9. Under
RPC 1.7(a)(2), a conflict exists if "there is a significant risk that the representation
of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to
13 Mickens, 535 U.S. at 173.
14 Mickens, 535 U.S. at 173.
15 Mickens, 535 U.S. at 206-07.
16 Mickens, 535 U.S. at 173.
17 Mickens, 535 U.S. at 173.
-6-
No. 76136-6-1/7
another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the
lawyer." RPC 1.9(a) and (b) prohibit a lawyer from representing a client in a
matter substantially related to a matter in which the lawyer or the lawyer's firm
has represented a former client unless the former client gives written consent.
Facts matter. Here, the facts presented to the trial court do not show a
significant risk that Montoya's former representation of Giddings materially limited
his representation of Key. The trial court received this evidence: First, when
asked, Montoya could not identify any way that his prior representation of
Giddings would limit his ability to represent Key.
THE COURT: So, Mr. Montoya, do you believe that your
representation of Mr. Key in this case would be materially limited by
your responsibilities to your former client, Donald Giddings, and
bear in mind Mr. Giddings' comments here?
MR. MONTOYA: It would not, Your Honor.
Montoya also represented that he could not identify any way to use information
gained from his prior representation of Giddings.
THE COURT: So are you reasonably sure, Mr. Montoya,
that you would not be in any way required to use information
relating to your representation of Donald Giddings in a prior matter
in order to properly represent Mr. Key?
MR. MONTOYA: No, Your Honor. And as 1 previously
noted, I have no recollection of the case whatsoever. Even after
looking at the court docket, I have no recollection of the case at all.
-7-
No. 76136-6-1/8
Montoya answered as an officer of the court. The trial court could properly rely
on his statements.
Key's independent counsel on the conflict issue, Margot Carter, also told
the court that she could not identify any conflict of interest.
THE COURT: So you cannot identify, as I understand it, any
actual conflict of interest or any conflict that would adversely affect
Mr. Montoya's performance on behalf of Mr. Key in this case; is that
right?
MS. CARTER: Your Honor, what I would say is that I have
very limited knowledge of the specifics and I was, as I understood
it, appointed to explain to him what his options were and what the
conflict was in general terms, but based on what I've heard today, I
haven't been able to identify any.
THE COURT: So just to be clear, you haven't been able to
identify any actual conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Montoya; is
that right?
MS. CARTER: That is correct.
THE COURT: And you haven't been able to identify any
conflict that adversely affects Mr. Montoya's performance on behalf
of Mr. Key; is that right?
MS. CARTER: From the limited amount of knowledge I
have, yes.
Key could not identify disqualifying conflict either. The court asked Key
directly if he could identify any actual conflict of interest that would adversely
affect Montoya's performance.
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Key, I want to give you an
opportunity to identify any actual conflict of interest that you think
-8-
No. 76136-6-1/9
exists in Mr. Montoya representing you in this case. Do you have
anything to say about that?
DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Is there anything you'd like to tell the Court
about any possible conflict that would adversely affect your
attorney's performance in this case?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
From this inquiry, the experienced trial court judge properly determined
that no actual conflict existed that required appointing Key new counsel. No one
could identify any conflict based on Montoya's previous representation of
Giddings. And Key acknowledges that Montoya remembered nothing about the
prior case.
As for RPC 1.9, the former client, Giddings, gave his written consent to the
representation, satisfying the conditions of the rule. Key argues that because
Giddings never waived his attorney-client privilege, Montoya's performance was
limited. But Montoya maintained that he could not recall any details of his
representation of Giddings. The court had no reason to find a conflict when no
facts supported it.
Key claims this case is like State v. Stenger." There, the court
disqualified a prosecuting attorney from prosecuting an aggravated murder
charge because the attorney had previously represented the defendant in a
18 111 Wash. 2d 516, 518, 521-22,760 P.2d 357(1988).
-9-
No. 76136-6-1/ 10
misdemeanor assault case. But we distinguish Stenger. In Stenger, the
prosecuting attorney's earlier representation of the defendant was "closely
interwoven" with the aggravated murder prosecution case because information
obtained in that representation, "including information about the defendant's
background and earlier criminal and antisocial conduct," could influence the
prosecuting attorney's exercise of discretion in seeking the death penalty.19
Here, Key identifies no information about Montoya's representation of Giddings
that could have disadvantaged Key. Key claims that Giddings' reputation for
violence or prior acts of violence could be relevant to a claim of self-defense.2°
But unlike in Stenger, where the knowledge obtained in the prior representation
might have influenced the prosecuting attorney in seeking the death penalty, Key
does not show how Montoya's potential knowledge of these facts could have
affected his representation of Key.
The record here does not show more than a theoretical conflict, which is
not enough to justify reversa1.21 Key's claim that a conflict deprived him of
effective counsel fails.
19 Stenger, 111 Wash. 2d at 521-22.
20 See ER 404(a)(2).
21 Mickens, 535 U.S. at 171.
-10-
No. 76136-6-1/ 11
Public Trial Right
Next, Key contends that the trial court violated his right to a public trial with
an unrecorded sidebar conference during voir dire. We disagree.
Both our state and federal constitutions guarantee defendants the right to
a public tria1.22 But this right is not absolute.23 Not all interactions between the
court, counsel, and defendants implicate the public trial right.24 Washington
courts follow a three-step analysis to determine whether a violation of the right to
a public trial has occurred.25 The court asks (1) whether the public trial right
attaches to the proceeding at issue, (2) whether the courtroom was closed, and
(3) whether closure was justified.26 Whether the trial court has violated the
defendant's public trial right is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.21
The Washington Supreme Court has adopted the experience and logic
test to determine if a particular proceeding implicates the public trial right.28
Under the experience prong, courts ask "'whether the place and process have
historically been open to the press and general public.'"29 Under the logic prong,
22 U.S. CONST. amend. VI; WASH. CONST. art. 1, § 22.
23 State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1,9, 288 P.3d 1113(2012).
24 State v. Siert, 181 Wn.2d 598,603, 334 P.3d 1088 (2014).
25 State v. Love, 183 Wash. 2d 598, 605, 354 P.3d 841 (2015).
26 Love, 183 Wash. 2d at 605.
21 State v. Brightman, 155 Wash. 2d 506, 514, 122 P.3d 150(2005).
28 State v. Smith, 181 Wash. 2d 508, 511, 334 P.3d 1049(2014).
28 Smith, 181 Wash. 2d at 514 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58,73, 292 P.3d 715(2012)(plurality opinion))).
-11-
No. 76136-6-1 /12
courts ask "whether public access plays a significant positive role in the
functioning of the particular process in question."36 If the public trial right
attaches, then the trial court must apply the five factors from State v. Bone-Club31
before the trial court can close any part of a trial to the public.32
Key contends that the sidebar that occurred during voir dire was an
improper courtroom closure. Generally, sidebars do not implicate the public trial
right because they have historically been closed to the public and public access
plays no positive role in the proceeding.33 Proper sidebars "deal with mundane
issues implicating little public interest."34 Thus, under the experience and logic
test, sidebars do not usually implicate the public trial right."
Key contends that this sidebar was unusual and implicates the public trial
right. "[The party presenting an issue for review has the burden of providing an
adequate record to establish such error.'"36 Here, Key has not shown that this
was an untraditional sidebar. He merely cites the portion of the record showing
the sidebar occurred. In this case, the sidebar took place during voir dire, after
the attorneys questioned prospective jurors and before for-cause challenges.
3° Smith 181 Wash. 2d at 514 (citing Sublet, 176 Wash. 2d at 73).
31128 Wash. 2d 254, 258-59, 906 P.2d 325(1995).
Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d at 73.
"Smith, 181 Wash. 2d at 511.
34 Smith, 181 Wash. 2d at 516.
35 Smith, 181 Wash. 2d at 516.
36 Siert, 181 Wash. 2d at 608 (quoting State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wash. 2d 607,
619, 290 P.3d 942(2012)).
-12-
No. 76136-6-I /13
The record shows that immediately after the sidebar the court took a short
recess. This strongly suggests that the sidebar discussion was about taking a
recess. Key has presented no evidence that the court and counsel discussed
anything else. Because "scheduling matters" are exactly the type of subject
intended for sidebar discussions, the conference was a traditional sidebar and
does not implicate Key's public trial right.37
Key contends that because the trial court never memorialized the sidebar,
his right to a public trial was violated. "To avoid implicating the public trial right,
sidebars ... must either be on the record or be promptly memorialized in the
record."38 But this does not relieve Key of his burden to prove that the sidebar
implicated his public trial right. In State v. Crowder,39 a Division Three case, the
appellant argued that an unrecorded sidebar violated his right to a public trial.
The court stated, "Crowder's public trial argument would have traction only if he
could show something substantive occurred during the off-the-record sidebar."4°
Crowder failed to prove that the sidebar in his case was outside of the general
rule.41 The same is true here. Although the trial court did not memorialize the
37 State v. Whitlock, 188 Wash. 2d 511, 513-14, 396 P.3d 310 (2017)
("Typical examples of such mundane issues are scheduling, housekeeping, and
decorum.").
38 Smith 181 Wash. 2d at 516 n.10; see also Whitlock, 188 Wash. 2d at 522.
38 196 Wash. App. 861, 867, 385 P.3d 275 (2016), review denied, 188
Wn.2d 1003(2017).
40 Crowder, 196 Wash. App. at 867.
41 Crowder, 196 Wash. App. at 867.
-13-
No. 76136-6-1 / 14
sidebar, Key has not shown that anything substantive occurred implicating his
right to a public trial.
Offender Score
Key contends that the State failed to prove the comparability of his out-of-
state convictions and seeks review of his offender score. In calculating Key's
offender score, the trial court used five out-of-state convictions, two from
Wisconsin, two from California, and one from Florida. The State concedes that it
presented insufficient evidence of these prior convictions for the court to include
them in Key's offender score. We agree.
Under the Sentence Reform Act of 1981 (SRA),42 a defendant's offender
score may include out-of-state convictions if the out-of-state offense is
comparable to a Washington offense.43 An out-of-state offense must be
classified according to the comparable definitions and sentences provided by
Washington law." "The State bears the burden of proving the existence and
comparability of all out-of-state convictions."45
The State did not produce evidence to establish the existence of the
Wisconsin and Florida convictions. The record contains no evidence of either
Wisconsin conviction. For the Florida conviction, the record does contain
42 Ch. 9.94A RCW.
43 RCW 9.94A.525(3).
44 RCW 9.94A.525(3).
45 State v. Olsen, 180 Wn.2d 468,472, 325 P.3d 187(2014).
-14-
No. 76136-6-1/15
judgment and sentence documents from Florida. But neither evidences the
convictions used in Key's criminal history. The Florida offense described in the
judgment and sentence in this case states that Key was sentenced on February
15, 2008, for "Dealing in Stolen Property." The documents in the record,
however, related to convictions for "Petit Theft-Retail" with an August 4, 2008,
disposition date, and "Fraud Use of Credit Cards" with a disposition date of
September 28, 2008. The State did not meet its burden to establish the
existence of these prior convictions.
For the California convictions, the State did not prove comparability. The
State introduced documents to show the existence of the California convictions
but offered no argument below or on appeal to show that they are comparable to
Washington offenses. The trial court merely accepted the State's proffered
criminal history. Thus, the State did not meet its burden to show that the
California offenses were comparable to Washington offenses.
We accept the State's concession and remand to the trial court for
resentencing. The SRA permits the parties to Introduce evidence related to
criminal history on remand.46
46 RCW 9.94A.530(2).
-15-
No. 76136-6-1 / 16
Appellate Costs
Key asks this court to deny any award of appellate costs. But the State
does not request appellate costs in its brief. And when, as here, a trial court
makes a finding of indigency, that finding remains throughout review "unless the
commissioner or clerk determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the
offender's financial circumstances have significantly improved since the last
determination of indigency."47 If the State has evidence to establish this change
in circumstance, it may file a motion for costs with the commissioner.
CONCLUSION
Because Key does not show his right to effective assistance of counsel
and a public trial were violated, we affirm his conviction. Because the State
failed to prove the existence and comparability of prior foreign convictions,
however, we remand for resentencing.
WE CONCUR:
wuthuti y
47 RAP 14.2.
-16-