State Of Washington, V Leldon Roy Pittman

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
2015 JAN 27 AM 8: 48
WilliGiON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 44652 -9 -II
Appellant. PART PUBLISHED OPINION
v.
LELDON R. PITTMAN,
Respondent.
BJORGEN, A.C. J. — Leldon R. Pittman appeals his convictions for attempting to elude a
police vehicle and for driving under the influence of intoxicants. Pittman claims that the
charging information omitted essential elements from the charge of attempting to elude a police
vehicle and that the parties' exercise of their peremptory challenges on paper violated his right to
a public trial. In a pro se statement of additional grounds, Pittman claims that his trial was
untimely, requiring dismissal under CrR 3. 3, and that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. We conclude in the published portion of this opinion that the charging information was
adequate, and we address and reject Pittman' s' additional arguments in the unpublished portion.
We affirm.
No. 44652 -9 -II
FACTS
In January 2012, Pittman returned home after a night out and fought with his mother and
stepfather. After Pittman and his girl friend drove off, his mother called 911 to report the
altercation and gave a description of Pittman' s car.
Police dispatch reported the incident as a vehicular assault involving a dark colored
vehicle with a broken front windshield, and units from the Fife and Milton police departments
responded. One of these units saw a car matching that description driving erratically away from
the scene of the altercation. As the uniformed officer pulled behind the car to initiate a traffic
stop, the car sped away. The car, later determined to be the one driven by Pittman, led officers
on a chase at speeds between 30 and 80 m.p.h. During this chase, the sirens and emergency
lights of the police vehicles were in use.
The chase ended when Pittman' s car crashed. As police officers approached the crashed
vehicle, Pittman got out of it, saw the officers and, despite verbal commands that he stop,
attempted to flee. Officers ultimately had to taser Pittman to subdue him.
The State charged Pittman with, among other offenses, driving under the influence of
alcohol in violation of RCW 46. 61. 502( 1)( c) and attempting to elude a police vehicle in violation
of RCW 46. 61. 024( 1). 1 On the eluding charge, the information stated that
Leldon Roy Pittman ...
did unlawfully, feloniously, and wil[ l] fully fail or refuse
to immediately bring his vehicle to a stop and drive his vehicle in a reckless manner
while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, after being given a visual or
audible signal to bring his vehicle to a stop by a uniformed officer in a vehicle
equipped with lights and sirens, contrary to RCW 46. 61. 024( 1).
1 RCW 46.61. 024( 1) provides that
a] ny driver of a motor vehicle who willfully fails or refuses to immediately bring
his or her vehicle to a stop and who drives his or her vehicle in a reckless manner
while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, after being given a visual or
audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a class C felony. The
signal given by the police officer may be by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren.
2
No. 44652 -9 -II
Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 12. The State alleged that while attempting to elude the police, Pittman
endangered one or more persons other than himself or the pursuing officers, an aggravating
circumstance for sentencing under RCW 9. 94A.533( 11).
After trial, the jury convicted Pittman of the driving under the influence and attempting to
elude offenses. The jury also found that Pittman had endangered persons other than himself or
the pursuing police when he attempted to elude a police vehicle, constituting the aggravating
circumstance for sentencing.
Pittman timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE CHARGING DOCUMENT
Pittman argues that the information omitted an essential element of the crime of
attempting to elude a police officer. Specifically, he contends that the charging document
omitted any mention that police signaled by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren that he should
stop. We hold that the method by which police officers signal to stop is not an essential element
of the crime of attempting to elude a police vehicle and that the information did not need to
include this language.
An information is constitutionally defective if it fails to list the essential elements of a
crime. State v. Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d 153, 158, 307 P.3d 712 ( 2013). The essential elements of a
crime are those "`` whose specification is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior'
charged. "2 Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d at 158 ( quoting State v. Ward, 148 Wash. 2d 803, 811, 64 P.3d 640
2 Essential elements required in an information may be imposed by statute or common law. State
v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d 93, 101 - 02, 812 P.2d 86 ( 1991). Pittman' s challenge here concerns
statutory elements, since he claims that language found in RCW 46. 61. 024( 1) creates an essential
element.
3
No. 44652 -9 -II
2003)). Requiring the State to list the essential elements in the information protects the
defendant' s right to notice of the nature of the criminal accusation guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington State
Constitution. Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d at 158. Due to the constitutional nature of the challenge to
the sufficiency of an information, we review de novo claims that it omitted essential elements of
a charged crime. State v. Williams, 133 Wash. App. 714, 717, 136 P.3d 792 ( 2006).
In a challenge to the sufficiency of an information, we must first decide whether the
allegedly missing element is, in fact, an essential element. See State v. Tinker, 155 Wash. 2d 219,
220, 118 P.3d 885 ( 2005). If so, and where the defendant challenges, as here, the sufficiency of
the information for the first time on appeal, we must then " liberally construe the language of the
charging document in favor of validity." Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d at 161. Liberal construction
requires that we determine whether " the necessary elements appear in any form, or by fair
construction, on the face of the document and, if so," whether " the defendant [ can] show he or
she was actually prejudiced by the unartful language." Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d at 162 ( citing
Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 105 -06).
The elements of the crime of attempting to elude a police vehicle are fixed in RCW
46. 61. 024( 1), which states:
Any driver of a motor vehicle who willfully fails or refuses to immediately bring
his or her vehicle to a stop and who drives his or her vehicle in a reckless manner
while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, after being given a visual or
audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a class C felony. The
signal given by the police officer may be by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren.
The officer giving such a signal shall be in uniform and the vehicle shall be
equipped with lights and sirens.
4
No. 44652 -9 -II
The information, set out above, omits any mention of making the signal by hand, voice,
emergency light, or siren. The issue, then, is whether making the signal by one of those four
means is an essential element of the crime.
To make such a determination, we must engage in statutory interpretation. Tinker, 155
Wash. 2d at 221; State v. Caton, 163 Wn. App. 659, 668, 260 P.3d 946 ( 2011), reversed on other
grounds by 174 Wash. 2d 239, 273 P.3d 980 ( 2012). When interpreting a statute, we attempt to
ascertain and give effect to the legislature' s intent. Dep' t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn,
LLC, 146 Wash. 2d 1, 9 -10, 43 P.3d 4 ( 2002). We ascertain the legislature' s intent using the plain
meaning imparted by the text of the provision and that of any related provisions. Campbell &
Gwinn, 146 Wash. 2d at 11 - 12. Where a statute is susceptible of multiple reasonable interpretations
after the plain meaning analysis, it is ambiguous, and we must turn to extrinsic evidence such as
legislative history, common law precedent, or canons of construction to determine the
legislature' s intent. Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wash. 2d at 12.
The first sentence of RCW 46. 61. 024( 1), quoted above, plainly sets out essential
elements of the crime: those elements which are necessary to establish illegality. Zillyette, 178
Wash. 2d at 158. One of those elements is that the defendant must have been given a visual or
audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop. The second sentence then specifies further that the
signal must have been given by " the police officer" and that it "may be by hand, voice,
emergency light, or siren." RCW 46. 61. 024( 1). The third sentence of RCW 46. 61. 024( 1) adds
to this by requiring that the officer giving the signal be in uniform.
The requirements in the second and third sentences that the signal be given by a police
officer in uniform are also necessary to establish illegality and are thus essential elements under
Zillyette. 178 Wash. 2d at 158. The statement in the second sentence, though, that the police
No. 44652 -9 -II
may" signal " by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren," is not so easily characterized. RCW
46. 61. 024( 1). " May" in this context could reasonably be read as requiring the police to use any
one of the four enumerated means of signaling to a defendant. RCW 46. 61. 024( 1). The
defendant would not act criminally unless he or she disregarded one of the specified signal types.
However, as the State notes, the legislature' s use of "may" in RCW 46. 61. 024( 1) could also
reasonably be read to permit, but not require, one of the enumerated types of signals. Under this
reading of the statute, the manner in which police give the signal does not establish the
criminality of the defendant' s actions. Instead the State would only need to prove that the
defendant disregarded some type of police signal to stop to show criminal behavior.3 Under the
former reading, the manner in which police signal would be an essential element of the crime.
Cf.Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d at 160 ( type of controlled substance is a necessary element where the
delivery of only certain types .of controlled substances can give rise to homicide by delivery
charges). Under the latter reading, it would not be an essential element.
Under its plain meaning, then, RCW 46. 61. 024( 1) is susceptible of multiple reasonable
interpretations and is therefore ambiguous. Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wash. 2d at 12. With that
ambiguity, we must turn to legislative history, common law precedent, or canons of construction
to determine the legislature' s intent. Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wash. 2d at 12. One of those canons
states that we construe statutes in a manner avoiding absurd interpretations. State v. Ortega, 177 '
Wn.2d 116, 130, 297 P.3d 57 ( 2013). Closely related to this canon is the fundamental rule that
we construe statutes to give effect to the legislature' s intent. Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wash. 2d at
9 -10.
3 The use of "may" in the second sentence and " shall" in the third does not resolve this
dichotomy, since " may" logically could mean that the signal must be given by any one of the
four listed means. RCW 46. 61. 024( 1).
6
No. 44652 -9 -II
The gravamen of the attempting to elude offense is that the defendant failed to stop when
signaled to do so by police. Courts have recognized that this serves the legislature' s goal of
prevent[ ing] `` unreasonable conduct in resisting law enforcement activities. "' State v. Treat,
109 Wn. App. 419, 426, 35 P.3d 1192 ( 2001) ( quoting State v. Hudson, 85 Wash. App. 401, 403,
932 P.2d 714 ( 1997)). As the State points out, under Pittman' s interpretation, defendants could
freely ignore certain types of law enforcement signals such as whistles, flares, or written signs,
thereby defeating the legislature' s intent in enacting RCW 46. 61. 024( 1).
Resolving an ambiguity by following an interpretation that so erodes transparent
legislative intent creates a basic and unnecessary contradiction in the law. This dissonance both
creates an absurdity under Ortega, 177 Wash. 2d at 130, and ignores the basic injunction of
statutory construction to give effect to legislative intent. Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wash. 2d at 9 -10.
To avoid that absurdity and to honor that intent, RCW 46. 61. 024 ( 1) must be interpreted to
require that the police have reasonably signaled the defendant to stop, but not that they must
have made that signal exclusively by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren. Therefore, the
specific method by which the police made this signal is not an essential element of the crime of
attempting to elude a police vehicle.
Pittman attempts to analogize the information in his case to the one found defective in
State v. Naillieux, 158 Wn. App. 630, 241 P.3d 1280 ( 2010). In Naillieux the State alleged in the
information that the defendant had driven
his ... vehicle in a manner indicating a wanton or willful disregard for the lives
or property of others while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle
appropriately marked after being given visual or audible signal by a uniformed
police o ffi c er to bring his ... vehicle to a stop."
158 Wn. App. at 644 ( quoting Clerk' s Papers at 3 - 4). The language in the information in
Naillieux tracked the language found in an older version of the attempting to elude statute. 158
7
No. 44652 -9 -II
Wn. App. at 644 ( citing former RCW 41. 61. 024 ( 1983)). Legislative amendments had modified
two elements found in the former statute before Naillieux' s alleged criminal act.4 Division Three
of our court found that the use of the former statutory language in the information failed to
provide notice of the essential elements of the crime of attempting to elude a police vehicle as it
existed when Naillieux allegedly refused to stop. Naillieux, 158 Wash. App. at 644 -45. Naillieux,
therefore, simply stands for the rule that use of obsolete statutory language in an information
may well miss current essential elements of an offense. It does not suggest that use of the phrase
visual or audible signal" overlooks an essential element of the offense.
The specific manner by which police signal someone to stop is not an essential element
of the crime of attempting to elude a police vehicle. The information therefore did not omit an
essential element of that crime.
A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion
will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for public
record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
II. PUBLIC TRIAL
After conducting voir dire, the parties exercised their peremptory challenges to potential
jurors by listing the jurors that they wished to strike on a piece of paper. There is no evidence
that the trial court considered the factors prescribed in State v. Bone -Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906
P.2d 325 ( 1995), before allowing the parties to exercise their peremptory challenges in this
4
First, the legislature had replaced the phrase ' manner indicating a wanton or willful disregard
for the lives or
property of others ' with the phrase "`` reckless manner. ' Naillieux, 158 Wn.
App. at 644 ( citing LAWS of 2003, ch. 101, § 1). Second, the legislature had replaced the phrase
appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle ' with the phrase "' equipped
with lights and sirens. ' Naillieux, 158 Wash. App. at 645 ( citing. LAWS of 2003, ch. 101, § 1).
8
No. 44652 -9 -II
manner. Pittman contends that following this process without first conducting on the record the
inquiry required by Bone -Club, 128 Wash. 2d 258 -59, violated his right to a public trial. His
challenge, however, fails under recent precedent.
In State v. Marks, _ Wn. App. , 339 P.3d 196 ( 2014), we rejected a nearly identical
challenge to the use of written peremptory challenges, relying on our decisions in State v.
Wilson, 174 Wn. App. 328, 338 -40, 298 P.3d 148 ( 2013), State v. Love, 176 Wash. App. 911, 309
P.3d 1209 ( 2013), and State v. Dunn, 180 Wn. App. 570, 321 P.3d 1283 ( 2014), as well as the
Supreme Court' s decision in State v. Slert, Wn.2d , 334 P.3d 1088, 1092 ( 2014). We
follow Marks and reject Pittman' s challenge here for the same reasons.
III. TIME FOR TRIAL RULE
In his statement of additional grounds, Pittman contends that his trial did not occur within
the time specified by CrR 3. 3, requiring dismissal of all the charges against him. Specifically,
Pittman contends that the State improperly delayed arraigning him and that multiple
continuances to which he objected delayed his trial.5 Pittman, however, waived any claim of a
time for trial rule violation, and we decline to address his claims.
CrR 3. 3 requires that a criminal defendant receive a trial within 60 or 90 days of his first
appearance unless the defendant waives that time for trial, the trial court otherwise resets the
time for trial, or the trial court excludes a period of time from the time for trial calculation. CrR
5 None of the orders granting continuances are in the record designated for appeal, nor are many
of the transcripts of proceedings where the trial court granted the continuances. The proceedings
that we do have confirm that Pittman signed a time for trial waiver so that he could exercise his
right to represent himself and have time to prepare for trial.
9
No. 44652 -9 -I1
3. 3( b), ( c), ( e), ( f).6' 7 If the State fails to try the defendant within the time period required by
CrR 3. 3, it must dismiss the charges with prejudice. CrR 3. 3( h). We review claims that a
defendant' s trial occurred outside the time allowed by this rule de novo. State v. Chavez -
Romero, 170 Wn. App. 568, 577, 285 P.3d 195 ( 2012), review denied, 176 Wash. 2d 1023 ( 2013).
CrR 3. 3( d)( 3) requires the defendant to take specific steps to preserve a claim that his or
her trial occurred in an untimely manner. Specifically,
a] party who objects to the date set upon the ground that it is not within the time
limits prescribed by this rule must, within 10 days after the notice is mailed or
otherwise given, move that the court set a trial within those time limits. Such
motion shall be promptly noted for hearing by the moving party in accordance with
local procedures. A party who fails, for any reason, to make such a motion shall
lose the right to object that a trial commenced on such a date is not within the time
limits prescribed by this rule.
CrR 3. 3( d)( 3). The motion for a trial within the period set by CrR 3. 3 must be made in writing.
Chavez -Romero, 170 Wash. App. at 581.
The record shows no written motion from Pittman requesting a trial in accordance with
CrR 3. 3. The record also shows no hearing noted for any such motion. Pittman failed to
preserve his time for trial challenge, and CrR 3. 3( d)( 3) requires that we refrain from addressing
the merits of his claim.8
6 Whether trial is required within 60 or 90 days depends on whether the defendant spends the
pretrial period in custody. CrR 3. 3( b)( 1) -( 4).
7 The trial court may exclude a period of time from the time for trial calculation for competency
proceedings, proceedings on unrelated charges, continuances, the dismissal of charges without
prejudice, the disposition of a related charge, the defendant' s detention in a foreign or federal jail
or prison, juvenile proceedings, certain unavoidable or unforeseen circumstances, or the recusal
of the assigned judge. CrR 3. 3( e).
8 Pittman' s time for trial claim also makes allegations of prosecutorial vindictiveness. No
evidence in the record supports Pittman' s allegations that the prosecutor threatened to punish
him with additional charges unless he pleaded guilty or that the prosecutor actually did add
10
No. 44652 -9 -II
IV. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Finally, Pittman contends that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to
call an expert to support a diminished capacity defense.9 We disagree.
Both the state and federal constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to
effective representation by their counsel. State v. Grier, 171 Wash. 2d 17, 32, 246 P.3d 1260
2011), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 153 ( 2014). 10° 11 We review the constitutional sufficiency of a
defendant' s representation using the federal test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 ( 1984). Grier, 171 Wash. 2d at 32. To obtain relief
under Strickland, the defendant must show both that counsel performed deficiently and that this
deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. We review de
novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as these claims present mixed questions of law
and fact. State v. Sutherby, 165 Wash. 2d 870, 883, 204 P.3d 916 ( 2009).
The deficient performance prong turns on the legitimacy of defense counsel' s tactical
choices. Where the defendant complains about choices that "`` can be characterized as legitimate
trial strategy, ' we may not find deficient performance. Grier, 171 Wash. 2d 33 -34 ( quoting State
offenses to punish him for his refusal to plead guilty. His claim therefore fails. State v. Lee, 69
Wash. App. 31, 35 -38, 847 P.2d 25 ( 1993).
9 Pittman' s diminished capacity claim asserts that his stepfather abused him when he was a child
and that the fight with his parents the night of his arrest triggered some manner of impaired
volitional control related to memories of that abuse
10
The relevant portion of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that "[ i] n
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel
for his defense."
11
The relevant portion of article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution provides that "[ i] n
criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, or by
counsel."
11
No. 44652 -9 -II
v. Kyllo, 166 Wash. 2d 856, 863, 215 P.3d 177 ( 2009)). However, where " a criminal defendant can
demonstrat[ e] that ``there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel' s
performance, ' he or she shows deficient performance. Grier, 171 Wash. 2d at 33 ( quoting State v.
Reichenbach, 153 Wash. 2d 126, 130, 101 P.3d 80 ( 2004)).
Diminished capacity is a " mental disorder" that " impair[ s] the defendant' s ability to form
the culpable mental state to commit the crime charged." State v. Atsbeha, 142 Wash. 2d 904, 914,
16 P.3d 626 ( 2001). In the context of RCW 46. 61. 024( 1), the required mental state,
willfulness," simply means " knowledge" that the police have ordered the defendant to stop.
State v. Mather, 28 Wash. App. 700, 702, 626 P.2d 44 ( 1981).
Pittman rests his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the psychological evaluation
attached to the defense' s sentencing memorandum. The psychologist opined that Pittman had
great difficulty conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law" and that this justified a
lenient sentence. CP at 91. The psychologist' s testimony does not, in any way, suggest that
Pittman could not understand that he was being told to stop, only that he had difficulty in making
himself do so. Given the failure of the evaluation to show an inability to form the necessary
mental state, case law would have required the trial court to exclude the psychologist' s
testimony. Atsbeha, 142 Wash. 2d at 920 -21; cf.State v. Gough, 53 Wash. App. 619, 622 -23, 768
P.2d 1028 ( 1989). Pittman' s counsel did not render deficient performance by declining to call a
psychologist to testify about a diminished capacity defense, which the trial court would have
excluded. Pittman' s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, therefore, must fail. Kyllo, 166
Wash. 2d at 862 ( we may resolve an ineffective assistance counsel claim on either prong of the
Strickland test).
12
No. 44652 -9 -II
CONCLUSION
We affirm Pittman' s convictions.
I concur:
13
No. 44652 -941
JOHANSON, C. J. ( concurring) — I concur with the majority opinion in almost all aspects.
My disagreement starts with the majority opinion where it declares RCW 46. 61. 024( 1) ambiguous.
Majority at 7. In my view, a plain reading of the statute is all t-hat is necessary in order to determine
that the charging document adequately informed Leldon R. Pittman of all essential elements of the
felony eluding charge.
Where the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time
on appeal, we must then " liberally construe the language of the charging document in favor of
validity." State v. Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d 153, 161, 307 P.3d 712 ( 2013). Liberal construction
requires that we determine whether " the necessary elements appear in any form, or by fair
construction, on the face of the document and, if so," whether " the defendant can show he or she
was actually .prejudiced by the unartful language." Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d at 162 ( citing State v.
Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d 93, 105, 812 P.2d 86 ( 1991)). A charging document must allege all essential
elements. Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d at 158. An element qualifies as essential if it is required to establish
the very illegality of the behavior. Zillyette, 178 Wash. 2d at 158.
In my view, applying the required liberal construction in favor of validity, the " very
illegality" of the felony elude behavior is established by the statutory language " fails or refuses to
stop after being given a visual or audible signal to ... stop." RCW 46. 61. 024( 1). The next sentence
that the majority deems ambiguous contains a permissive " may" and a nonexclusive list of the
manner of giving the audible or visual signal to stop. The manner of giving the " stop" signal is
plainly unnecessary to define the criminality of the offense. This language simply defines various
ways an officer is permitted to give the audible or visual signal to stop. Liberal construction
requires that we determine whether the necessary elements appear in any form or by fair
construction. A plain reading of the statute allows us to simply answer " yes "; Pittman was
14
No. 44652 -9 -II
informed of all essential elements of felony eluding when he was charged with "fails or refuses to
stop after being given a visual or audible signal to ... stop." Clerk' s Papers at 12. I would
hold that RCW 46. 61. 024( 1) is unambiguous and that the charging document was sufficient.
15