State of Washington v. La'Juanta Le'Vear Conner

Renee S. Townsley
The Court ofAppeals 500 N Cedar ST
Clerk/Administrator ofthe Spokane, WA 99201-1905
(509) 456-3082
State of Washington Fax (509) 456-4288
TDD #1-800-833-6388 Division Ill http://www.courts. wa.govlcourts
May 30, 2017
E-mail John A. Hays
John L. Cross Attorney at Law
Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office 1402 Broadway St
614 Division St Longview, WA 98632-3714
Port Orchard, WA 98366-4681 jahays@3equitycourt.com
CASE # 349730
State of Washington, Respondent v. La'Juanta Le'Vear Conner, Appellant
KITSAP COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT No. 111004358
Counsel:
Enclosed please find a copy of the opinion filed by the Court today. A party need not file a motion for
reconsideration as a prerequisite to discretionary review by the Supreme Court. RAP 13.3(b); 13.4(a). If
a motion for reconsideration is filed, it should state with particularity the points of law or fact which the
moving party contends the court has overlooked or misapprehended, together with a brief argument on
the points raised. RAP 12.4(c). Motions for reconsideration which merely reargue the case should not be
filed.
Motions for reconsideration, if any, must be filed within twenty (20) days after the filing of the opinion.
Please file an original and two copies of the motion (unless filed electronically). If no motion for
reconsideration is filed, any petition for review to the Supreme Court must be filed in this court within thirty
(30) days after the filing of this opinion (may be filed by electronic facsimile transmission). The motion for
reconsideration and petition for review must be received (not mailed) on or before the dates they are due.
RAP 18.5(c).
Sincerely,
~Yu~
Renee S. Townsley
Clerk/Administrator
RST:pb
Enc.
c: E-mail Hon. Jeanette Dalton
c: La'Juanta Le'Vear Conner
#359680
Washington State Penitentiary
1313 N. 13th Ave.
Walla Walla, WA 99362
I
l
FILED
MAY 30, 2017
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. 34973-0-III
)
Respondent, )
)
V. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
LA'JUANTA LE'VEAR CONNER, )
)
Appellant. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, A.CJ. -La'Juanta Le'Vear Conner appeals his sentence
and assigns error to the trial court's refusal to rule on his CrR 7 .8(b) motion. Because Mr.
Conner failed to properly note his motion, we conclude the trial court did not err.
FACTS
In 2012, a jury found Mr. Conner guilty of several crimes relating to a series of
home invasions. He appealed his convictions and filed a personal restrain petition (PRP).
Among other theories, Mr. Conner asserted in his PRP that the State vindictively
prosecuted him for refusing to accept a plea bargain. Division Two of this court vacated
one conviction and remanded to the trial court for resentencing on the remaining
convictions and 12 firearm enhancements.
No. 34973-0-111
State v. Conner
To accommodate transport, the trial court scheduled Mr. Conner's resentencing
hearing for March 18, 2016. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Conner mailed a handwritten
CrR 7.8(b)(2) motion to the sentencing court. On February 29, 2016, the sentencing court
filed that motion on behalf of Mr. Conner. The trial court also appointed new defense
counsel for Mr. Conner.
In the motion, Mr. Conner alleged his original trial counsel was ineffective for not
informing him of the State's plea offer, and requested the sentencing court to schedule an
evidentiary hearing. Mr. Conner attached a sworn declaration describing his lack of
knowledge of any plea offer and noting that his original trial counsel had been disbarred
for failing to inform clients of plea offers.
Defense counsel requested a continuance of the resentencing hearing for additional
time to research and brief various sentencing theories, as well as time to investigate Mr.
Conner's allegation raised in his CrR 7.8(b)(2) motion. The trial court continued the
resentencing hearing to March 18, 2016, but defense counsel was unavailable on that date
and did not attend. The trial court again continued the resentencing hearing to March 25,
2016.
Defense counsel submitted a brief that argued various sentencing theories not at
issue in this appeal. At the hearing, the State acknowledged that ~r. Conner had filed a
2
No. 34973-0-III
State v. Conner
CrR 7.8(b)(2) motion requesting relief from judgment because of newly discovered
evidence. The State acknowledged that Mr. Conner's prior counsel had a history of
failing to report plea bargains to clients. According to the State, because of this history, it
had placed its plea offer on the record in the original trial.
The sentencing court read the clerk's minutes from the original trial and
commented: "[T]he indication was that the State would provide a plea agreement to
[original defense counsel] before the next hearing. So that was actually incorporated in
the minute entry on September 16. The next hearing is September 21. There's simply no
mention one way or the other of the plea agreement." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 5.
The .State maintained that it had presented the offer on the record.
Defense counsel briefly addressed the CrR 7 .8 motion. "I'll start by noting my
client and I have discussed that. Mr. Conner was aware that he didn't note that motion,
but I don't feel that we're prejudiced." RP at 7.
The parties then addressed the resentencing issues. Prior to sentencing, the court
provided Mr. Conner his right of allocution. Mr. Conner discussed his sentencing
concerns and then began discussing his CrR 7 .8(b)(2) motion. He argued his original trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a plea offer from the State. He
3
No. 34973-0-III
State v. Conner
maintained that his counsel had neither informed him of his potential maximum sentence
nor communicated an offer to him.
Defense counsel then addressed the CrR 7 .8(b )(2) motion. Backtracking on his
previous statement, defense counsel said he was not prepared to argue the motion, and
reiterated that the motion was not properly noted. Defense counsel said that a more
formal hearing was necessary, and told the court, "I'm asking that the Court not address
the [CrR] 7.8 motion .... I want to withdraw all that and simply state this proposition."
RP at 29. Counsel ended by saying, "I should not have said I was prepared to represent
him on the 7.8. I wasn't hired to do it. I haven't done any work on it. My request is that
we set that over pursuant to the rule." 1 RP at 30.
The sentencing court treated the motion as withdrawn and stated, "I'm not going to
address the 7.8." RP at 30. The court explained:
[THE COURT:] Mr. Conner, I can't possibly know what occurred
between you and [former counsel] in terms of your discussions with him
and your trial strategy, how much of this was him, how much of this was
you, and that is not in any record before me. Given that, I'm not going to
address it so that you still have the opportunity to perfect that issue, if you
wish.
[Mr. Conner]: Referring to the 7.8; right?
THE COURT: Right. But this is not the place to start that issue.
[Mr. Conner]: Okay. That's why I sent you the motion.
1
Because defense counsel did not represent Mr. Conner in connection with the
CrR 7.8 motion, we determine the doctrine of invited error does not apply.
4
No. 34973-0-111
State v. Conner
THE COURT: I'm not going to address it because it's not properly
before me.
RP at 33. The court said it could not give Mr. Conner legal advice and told him if he had
questions, he should talk to defense counsel.
The court sentenced Mr. Conner to 1,148.5 months of incarceration. Mr. Conner
timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Conner contends the trial court erred by refusing to rule on his motion. He
contends that CrR 7.8(c) requires the trial court to determine if the motion is time barred
by RCW 10.73.090; and if it is not time barred, to either set a hearing if the motion is
meritorious or to transfer the motion to the Court of Appeals. The State responds that the
trial court set the motion over because Mr. Conner failed to properly note it and, for this
reason, there is no decision for this court to review.
CrR 7.8(b)(2) authorizes a trial court, on motion, to.relieve a criminal defendant
from a judgment of guilty on the basis of newly discovery evidence. CrR 8.2 provides
that CrR 3.5, CrR 3.6, and CR 7(b) governs motions in criminal cases. CR 7(b) describes
the process and form for motions. Although CR 7(b) does not explicitly require motions
to be noted for a specific date and time, local rules throughout the state, including Kitsap
County, contain this supplemental requirement.
5
No. 34973-0-111
State v. Conner
A trial court has discretion whether to waive or enforce its local rules. Ashley v.
Superior Court, 83 Wn.2d 630, 636, 521 P.2d 711 (1974). We cannot find that the trial
court abused its discretion when insisting on compliance with its local rule. The trial
court insisted on compliance so further information could be provided to assist in its
analysis of whether to retain the motion for the reasons set forth in CrR 7 .8(c) or to
transfer the motion to us. We, therefore, affirm the sentencing court's decision allowing
Mr. Conner to properly note his motion.
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.
WE CONCUR:
,;Jid4w , · .
Siddoway, J. ~ J=
6