State Of Washington, V Maua Muasau, Damos Handson, Michael Smith

IL FD
I_ S
SfribPE .
13 15
WON
13),
d iY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTO
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 42509 -2 -II
Respondent
V.
Consolidated with:
MAUA SIAMUPENI MUASAU,
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 42522 -0 -II
Respondent,
V.
Consolidated with:
DAMOS L. HANDSOM,
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 42708 -7 -II
Respondent,
V.
MICHAEL ANTONIO SMITH, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Al
JOHANSON, A.C. J. — A jury found Maua Siamupeni Muasau, Damos L. Handsom, and
Michael Antonio Smith guilty of first degree burglary. It also found Muasau guilty of felony
harassment and fourth degree assault. In this consolidated appeal, we hold that ( 1) the trial court
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522- 0- 11/
No. 42708 -7 -II
did not violate Smith' s CrR 3. 3 time for trial rights, ( 2) sufficient evidence supports Handsom' s
and Muasau' s first degree burglary convictions and Muasau' s felony harassment and fourth
degree assault convictions, and ( 3) Smith and Muasau' s ineffective assistance of counsel claims
fail. Smith also filed a statement of additional grounds ( SAG), claiming additional CrR 3. 3
violations, contesting witness credibility, and claiming jury instruction errors, jury trial
violations, and ineffective assistance. Because we find no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS
Bill Edmiston; his girlfriend, Lois Hopkins; and Hopkins' s cousin, Rusty Parrott lived
together in Parrott' s trailer. Hopkins' s son, Cody Davis, also temporarily lived there until Parrott
ordered him to move out. When Davis moved, he left no personal belongings in Parrott' s trailer.
In August 2010, shortly after Davis moved out of Parrott' s trailer, Davis, Handsom,
Muasau, and Smith returned and started banging on the trailer doors. Davis said he wanted to
collect his things, though he had nothing in the home. Edmiston and Parrott refused to allow the
men inside; but the men kicked in the doors to gain entry. Handsom and Smith wore black
masks covering their faces, and Handsom wore a military -style ballistic flak vest; Handsom also
carried an 47
AK - assault rifle while Smith carried a . 380 pistol. The men believed that Davis' s
father had hidden gold bars for Davis in the trailer.
When Parrott attempted to phone 911, Muasau took the phone and smashed it against the
wall. The men then ordered Edmiston and Parrott onto their hands and knees at gunpoint, and
Muasau told the other men to "[ s] moke `` em." 3 Verbatim Report of Proceedings ( VRP) at 225.
Davis, however, intervened and said not to kill his cousin. Then, Muasau and Davis demolished
2
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
Davis' s former bedroom but found nothing. Before leaving, Muasau hit Parrott in the right
cheek with his fist. Edmiston was also hit twice with something metal that Parrott believed was
the butt of Smith' s pistol.
Minutes after the intruders left Parrott' s trailer, Lakewood police contacted them in their
vehicle. Smith was carrying a set of brass knuckles, and officers found the AK - 7 assault rifle,
4
the . 380 pistol, and ammunition.
The State charged Handsom, Muasau, and Smith with numerous crimes relating to these
events and the State tried them in a consolidated trial.' On September 16, 2010, the trial court
granted Smith' s defense counsel' s continuance motion, noting, " Defense counsel has been on a
planned vacation[,]
pre - this is a 3rd strike, several co- defendant case & counsel needs more time
to negotiate/ &
prepare / investigate." Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 267. The trial court also indicated
that it granted the continuance motion upon the parties' agreement pursuant to CrR 3. 3( f)(1).
But Smith' s counsel told the trial court that Smith refused to sign the continuance order.
A jury found Handsom, Smith, and Muasau guilty of first degree burglary with a deadly
weapon enhancement,because at least one of them was armed during the burglary. The jury also
2
found Muasau guilty of felony harassment and fourth degree assault. The trial court then
sentenced each of the defendants, and the trial court found that Smith fell within Washington' s
Davis pleaded guilty.
2 The jury acquitted Smith of fourth degree assault.
9
No. 42509- 2- II/ No. 4. 522 -0 -II/
2
No. 42708 -7 -II
persistent offender statute and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Handsom, Smith, and Muasau now each raise claims on appeal.
ANALYSIS
I. CRR 3. 3 TIME FOR TRIAL
34
Smith argues that the trial court violated his CrR 3. time for trial right when it entered
its September 16, 2010 order continuing his trial because Smith had not signed the continuance
order. We disagree because the court granted the continuance in the interest of justice.
A. Standard of Review and Rules of Law
The decision to grant or deny a continuance motion rests with the sound discretion of the
trial court. State v. 011ivier, No. 86633 -3, slip. op. at 5 ( Wash. Oct. 31, 2013). A trial court
abuses its discretion if its decision is based on untenable grounds or is made for untenable
reasons. State v. Andrews, 66 Wn. App. 804, 810, 832 P.2d 1373 ( 1992), review denied, 120
Wash. 2d 1022 ( 1993). It is not a manifest abuse of discretion for a court to grant a continuance to
allow defense counsel more time to prepare for trial, even over defendant' s objection, to ensure
effective representation and a fair trial. See State v. Campbell, 103 Wash. 2d 1, 15, 691 P.2d 929
1984), cent. denied, 471 U.S. 1094 ( 1985).
An in-custody defendant must be tried within 60 days after the " commencement date,"
typically the arraignment date. CrR 3. 3( b)( 1). Periods of time excluded from this 60 -day limit
include those required by the administration of justice so long as the continuance will not
3 RCW 9. 94A.570.
4
CrR 3. 3 time for trial rights may be distinguished from the constitutional speedy trial right.
M
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522- 0- 11/
No. 42708 -7 -II
prejudice the defendant. CrR 3. 3( e)( 3), ( f)().
2 Under CrR 3. 3( f)(1), trial courts may grant
continuances "[ u] pon written agreement of the parties, which must be signed by the defendant."
B. Analysis
Here, 38 days into Smith' s 60 -day trial period, Smith' s counsel sought a continuance
because she needed additional time to investigate and to prepare for trial. Smith opposed the
continuance and refused to sign the order continuing trial.
The trial court granted the continuance request because "[ d] efense counsel has been on a
planned vacation[,]
pre - this is a 3rd strike, several co- defendant case & counsel needs more time
to negotiate/ &
prepare / investigate." CP at 267. The order also indicates that ( 1) the
continuance was based on the parties' agreement but (2) that one party refused to sign and voiced
an objection. This inconsistency appears to be a scrivener' s error or clerical mistake. 5 Had the
trial court intended to enter the order based on the parties' written agreement, it would have
needed Smith' s signature. CrR 3. 3( f)(1). And here, the trial court knew that Smith refused to
sign.
Based on the trial court' s articulated rationale, we conclude that it intended to grant the
continuance to promote the administration of justice under 2).
CrR 3. 3( f)( Accordingly, the trial
court did not violate Smith' s time for trial right because it granted the continuance in the
5 A clerical mistake is one that, when amended, would correctly convey the intention of the court
based on other evidence. State v. Priest, 100 Wn. App. 451, 456, 997 P.2d 452 ( 2000). A court
may correct a clerical mistake or scrivener' s error at any time. State v. Davis, 160 Wash. App.
471, 478, 248 P.3d 121 ( 2011).
5
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -11/
No. 42708 -7 -11
administration of justice and its notation that the continuance was by agreement of the parties
was merely a scrivener' s error.
11. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Next, Handsom and Muasau argue that the State offered insufficient evidence to prove
first degree burglary because it failed to show that they intended to commit a crime in addition to
unlawful entry. We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that they
committed first degree burglary based on their forced entry into the trailer, the ski masks and flak
vest, the presence and use of weapons, threats, and the crimes against persons and property
committed therein.
We review insufficient evidence claims for whether, when viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the jury' s verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d 192, 201,
829 P.2d 1068 ( 1992). Sufficiency challenges admit the truth of the State' s evidence and all
reasonable inferences drawn from it. Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d at 201.
The trier of fact makes credibility determinations, which we will not review. State v.
Thomas, 150 Wash. 2d 821, 874, 83 P.3d 970 ( 2004). We also defer to the trier of fact on issues of
conflicting testimony and the persuasiveness of evidence. State v. Walton, 64 Wash. App. 410,
415 -16, 824 P.2d 533, review denied, 119 Wash. 2d 1011 ( 1992).
A. First Degree Burglary
One commits first degree burglary if,
with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she
enters or remains unlawfully in a building and if, in entering or while in the
ON
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -11/
No. 42708 -7 -11
building or in immediate flight therefrom, the actor or another participant in the
crime (a) is armed with a deadly weapon, or (b) assaults any person.
RCW 9A. 52. 020( 1). The intent to commit a specific named crime inside the burglarized
building is not an " element" of burglary. State v. Bergeron, 105 Wash. 2d 1, 4, 711 P.2d 1000
1985). The intent required to prove burglary is simply the intent to commit any crime against a
person or property inside the burglarized premises. Bergeron, 105 Wash. 2d at 4. The jury may
determine that a defendant intended to commit a crime against a person or property by making
inferences " from the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the act and from
conduct which plainly indicates such intent as a matter of logical probability." State v. Kilponen,
47 Wn..App. 912, 919, 737 P.2d 1024, review denied, 109 Wash. 2d 1019 ( 1987).
The State need not prove that the principal and accomplice share the same mental state.
State v. Bockman, 37 Wash. App. 474, 491, 682 P.2d 925, review denied, 102 Wash. 2d 1002 ( 1984).
As long as the jury is unanimous that the defendant was a participant, it is not necessary that the
jury be unanimous that the defendant was a principal or an accomplice where there is evidence of
both manners of participation. See State v. Carothers, 84 Wash. 2d 256, 261 -62, 525 P.2d 731
1974), overruled on other grounds by State v. Harris, 102 Wash. 2d 148, 685 P.2d 584 ( 1984).
Here, the trial court instructed the jury:
1) That on or about the 8th day of August, 2010, the defendant or an accomplice
entered or remained unlawfully in a building;
2) That the entering or remaining was with intent to commit a crime against a
person or property therein;
3) That in so entering or while in the building or in immediate flight from the
building the defendant or an accomplice in the crime charged was armed with a
deadly weapon; and
4) That any of these acts occurred in the State of Washington.
7
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
CP at 51, 185.
Handsom and Muasau contend, specifically, that the State failed to prove that they
intended to commit any other crime in addition to unlawfully entering Parrott' s trailer. They cite
State v. Sandoval, 123 Wn. App. 1, 94 P.3d 323 ( 2004), to support their claim. In Sandoval, an
intoxicated Sandoval kicked in the front door of a stranger' s home in the middle of the night,
went inside, and shoved the occupant. 123 Wn. App. at 3. A jury found Sandoval guilty of
burglary, but Division Three of this court reversed because the State failed to show that Sandoval
entered the home intending to commit another crime. Sandoval, 123 Wn. App. at 5. Division
i
Three reasoned that Sandoval loudly kicked open the door and shoved the stranger only when the
stranger confronted him. Sandoval, 123 Wn. App. at 5. And, Sandoval did not know the
homeowner, and he was surprised to see anybody home. Sandoval, 123 Wash. App. at 5.
The facts here differ substantially. Unlike the drunken Sandoval, who was not expecting
to find anyone inside the home he unlawfully entered, here at least one of the accomplices knew
who lived in 'Parrott' s trailer and that someone was home; and here, Handsom arrived armed with
an assault rifle and a military -style ballistic flak vest and ski mask. And unlike
wearing
Sandoval, who drunkenly stumbled into the home and shoved the home' s resident only after the
resident confronted him, here Handsom, Muasau, and the others confronted Edmiston and Parrott
inside the trailer and forced Edmiston and Parrott onto their hands and knees at gunpoint. Then
Muasau threatened and assaulted them before Davis and Muasau destroyed Parrott' s trailer.
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
Muasau also cites State v. Woods, which involved a mother' s estranged son, who was
only permitted to enter the mother' s apartment when she was home. 63 Wash. App. 588, 589, 821
P.2d 1235 ( 1991). One day the mother was home sick from work, and the son, who believed that
his mother was at work, broke into the mother' s house with another man to recover the son' s
jacket. Woods, 63 Wn. App. at 589 -90. As the door opened, the mother yelled at them before
the men fled without taking the jacket. Woods,' 63 Wash. App. at 590. A jury convicted the son of
burglary, but Division One reversed, reasoning that the men lacked intent to commit another
crime after entering the home unlawfully. Woods, 63 Wash. App. at 591.
While both cases involved individuals breaking into someone else' s home with the help
of others to retrieve personal property ( or Davis' s" gold "), the similarities end there. In Woods,
the men did not know the mother was home until they entered and fled upon learning someone
was home; here, Davis spoke with Edmiston through the door before breaking in and the men
entered the trailer with guns and military -
style equipment, before confronting its occupants.
Specifically, Muasau confronted Parrott, pulled the telephone from his hands, and smashed it to
pieces before directing his associates to "[ s] moke `` em." 3 VRP at 225. Finally, unlike the men
in Woods who immediately left the scene without saying anything, Muasau stayed to demolish
the trailer and strike Parrott before leaving. Thus, Muasau' s reliance on Woods is misplaced.
Viewing the evidence here in a light most favorable to the State, any rational juror could
have found that Handsom and Muasau or an accomplice intended to commit a crime after
unlawfully entering Parrott' s trailer. Therefore, we affirm Handsom and Muasau' s first degree
burglary convictions.
9
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
B. Felony Harassment
Muasau next argues that the State failed to prove felony harassment because it did not
show that he knowingly threatened a future harm against Parrott. The jury heard sufficient
evidence to convict Muasau.
A person is guilty of harassment if, without lawful authority, he knowingly threatens to
cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened; and, the person by
words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried
out. RCW 9A.46. 020( 1)( a)( i), ( 1)( b). In order to convict an individual of felony harassment
based upon a threat to kill, the State must prove that the person threatened was placed in
reasonable fear that the threat to kill would be carried out as an element of the offense. State v.
C.G., 150 Wash. 2d 604, 612, 80 P.3d 594 ( 2003).
1. Knowing threat
First, Muasau contends that the State did not prove that he knowingly threatened Parrott.
To knowingly threaten another, a defendant must subjectively know that he is communicating a
threat, and know that " the communication he or she imparts directly or indirectly is a threat of
intent to cause bodily injury to the person threatened or to another person." State v. J.
M., 144
Wash. 2d 472, 481, 28 P. M. 720. (2001). Here, after smashing Parrott' s phone and forcing him to
his hands and knees, Muasau called out, " Smoke ``.em." 3 VRP at 225. Edmiston and Parrott
interpreted "[ s] moke `` em" as a threat to kill, and Parrott began praying for his life. Davis also
interpreted "[ s] moke `` em as a threat to kill because he intervened, "[ N] o, you can' t kill him." 3
VRP at 225. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of
10
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
fact could reasonably conclude that Muasau subjectively knew that, in ordering armed men to
s] moke `` em," he communicated a threat of intent to cause Parrott bodily injury.
2. Immediate or future harm
Second, Muasau argues that the State only proved that he communicated a threat of
immediate harm, not future harm, as was required. Muasau' s charging information and to-
convict instruction both stated that that the threat was to kill Parrott " immediately or in the
future." CP at 2, 59. The instruction defining threat, however, stated, " Threat means to
communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to cause bodily injury in the future." CP at 60.
Muasau asserts, then, that the law of the case limited the State by requiring proof of a threat of
future harm and not one of immediate harm.
Muasau cites State v. Willis, 153 Wash. 2d 366, 103 P.3d 1213 ( 2005); State v. Hickman,
135 Wash. 2d 97, 954 P.2d 900 ( 1998); and State v. Nam, 136 Wash. App. 698, 150 P.3d 617 ( 2007).
Because none of these cases, however, stands for the proposition that a discrepancy between to-
convict instructions and definitional instructions are resolved in favor of the definitional
instruction, we discuss them no further.
Because the unchallenged to- convict instruction for felony harassment correctly aligned
with our statute and Muasau' s charging information, the trial court properly informed the jury of
the necessary elements to convict Muasau for harassment. A definitional instruction for " threat"
merely defines a threat. If that definition is inserted into the to- convict instruction used here, the
to- convict instruction still advises the jury that evidence of a threat of immediate or future harm
would satisfy the necessary elements of harassment. Viewing the evidence in the light most
11
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that Muasau' s order to
s] moke `` em," conveyed a threat of immediate or future bodily injury. Accordingly, we affirm
Muasau' s felony harassment conviction.
C. Fourth Degree Assault
Next, Muasau claims that the State failed to prove fourth degree assault because it did not
show that he committed an intentional, offensive touching. Again, sufficient evidence supports
Muasau' s fourth degree assault conviction.
Assault is a willful act. State v. Davis, 119 Wash. 2d 657, 663, 835 P.2d 1039 ( 1992). The
intent required to prove an assault is " merely the intent to make physical contact with the victim,
not the intent that the contact be a malicious or criminal act." State v. Jarvis, 160 Wash. App. 111,
119, 246 P.3d 1280, review denied, 171 Wash. 2d 1029 ( 2011). Fourth degree assault is an assault
with little or no bodily harm, committed without a deadly weapon. State v. Hahn, 174 Wash. 2d
126, 129, 271 P.3d 892 ( 2012).
Here, the trial court instructed the jury of the following elements to convict Muasau of
fourth degree assault:
1) That on or about the 8th day of August, 2010, the defendant or an accomplice
assaulted Rusty Parrott; and
2) That this act occurred in the State of Washington.
CP at 63. The trial court defined assault as " an intentional touching or striking of another
person, that is harmful or offensive regardless of whether any physical injury is done to the
person." CP at 65.
12
No. 42509- 2- II/ No. 42522- 0- 11/
No. 42708 -7 -II
The State presented considerable evidence from which the jury could have reasonably
inferred Muasau' s intent to assault Parrott. Here, Edmiston testified that Muasau hit Parrott on
the side of the head. Parrott also testified that Muasau hit him on his right cheek with his fist.
Next, taking this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the jury could reasonably infer
that hitting someone in the face would be harmful or offensive. And, given the context of
Muasau' s activities in the trailer, the jury could reasonably infer from Muasau' s apparent anger
and willingness to be physical with Parrott that he intended to strike Parrott. For example,
Muasau had physically taken the telephone from Parrott and smashed it. Muasau also forced
Edmiston and Parrott onto the floor before demolishing the trailer' s bedroom. Viewing this
evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the jury could reasonably infer that Muasau
intended to strike Parrott in the face, an offensive or harmful act. Accordingly, we affirm
Muasau' s fourth degree assault conviction.
III. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Muasau next claims that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he
failed to argue that Muasau' s felony harassment and first degree burglary convictions amounted
to same criminal conduct for sentencing purposes. Muasau does not demonstrate deficient
performance or prejudice, so he therefore cannot prevail.
13
No. 42509- 2- II/ No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
A. Standard of Review and Rules of Law
To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his lawyer' s
representation was deficient and the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 ( 1984). Representation is
deficient if it falls below an objective standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all
the circumstances. State v. McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d 322, 334 -35, 899 P.2d 1251 ( 1995).
Prejudice occurs when but for counsel' s deficient performance, the proceeding' s result would
have been different. McFarland, 127 Wash. 2d at 335. If a party fails to satisfy either prong, we
need not consider both prongs. State v. Foster, 140 Wash. App. 266, 273, 166 P.3d 726, review
denied, 162 Wash. 2d 1007 ( 2007).
A sentencing court calculates the offender score by adding current offenses and prior
convictions. RCW 9. 94A.589( 1)( a). The offender score for each current offense includes all
other current offenses unless the trial court finds " that some or all of the current offenses
encompass the same criminal conduct." RCW 9. 94A. 589( 1)( a). Where the court makes such a
those one crime for sentencing purposes. RCW
finding, current offenses are counted as
9. 94A. 589( 1)( a). Offenses constitute the same criminal conduct if they are ( 1) committed with
the same criminal intent, ( 2) committed at the same time and place, and ( 3) involve the same
victim. RCW 9. 94A. 589( 1)( a); State v. Vike, 125 Wash. 2d 407, 410, 885 P.2d 824 ( 1994). In
determining whether multiple crimes constitute the same criminal conduct, courts consider how
intimately related the crimes are, whether between the crimes charged there was any substantial
change in the nature of the criminal objective, and whether one crime furthered the other. State
14
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
v. Burns, 114 Wash. 2d 314, 318, 788 P.2d 531 ( 1990). And crimes involving multiple victims
must be treated separately. State v. Dunaway, 109 Wash. 2d 207, 215, 743 P.2d 1237, 749 P.2d 160
1987).
And, we have an antimerger statute for burglary, " Every person who, in the commission
of a burglary shall commit any other crime, may be punished therefor[ e] as well as for the
burglary, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately." RCW 9A. 52. 050. This statute
gives trial courts discretion to punish burglary, even if the burglary and another crime encompass
the same criminal conduct. State v. Lessley, 118 Wash. 2d 773, 781, 827 P.2d 996 ( 1992).
B. Analysis
First, Muasau cannot demonstrate deficient performance. Because the burglary involved
two victims in the trailer, Edmiston and Parrott, and the felony harassment conviction involved
just one victim, Parrott, the crimes involved different victims and thus, would not constitute
same criminal conduct. See RCW 9. 94A.589( 1)( a); Dunaway, 109 Wash. 2d at 215.
Second, because of the antimerger statute, even if Muasau' s first degree burglary, felony
harassment, or fourth degree assault convictions encompassed same criminal conduct, the trial
court had the legal authority to punish Muasau separately on each offense. See Lessley, 118
Wash. 2d at 781. Muasau cannot now show that the trial court would not have exercised its
discretion to apply the antimerger statute. Unable to show deficient performance, Muasau does
not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.
IV. SMITH' S SAG
Smith raises a series of other issues in his SAG. None of these claims has merit.
15
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522- 0- 11/
No. 42708 -7 -II
A. Grounds for Continuance
Smith claims that defense counsel' s vacation plans were not adequate grounds for a
continuance under CrR 3. 3. His claim mischaracterizes the trial court' s stated reasons for
granting the continuance. Here, in addition to defense counsel being on a preplanned vacation
during the September 16, 2010 pretrial continuance hearing, defense counsel needed more time
to adequately prepare, negotiate, and investigate. The trial court also noted the case' s
complexity, that it involved a third -
strike offense and codefendants. Accordingly, the trial court
did not continue Smith' s trial solely because of counsel' s vacation; and, it did not abuse its
discretion in continuing trial in furtherance of the administration ofjustice.
B. Davis' s Credibility
Smith also argues that Davis' s credibility was suspect and unreliable. But because
credibility determinations are reserved for the trier of fact, we defer to the jury on issues of
witness credibility and will not review its determinations. Thomas, 150 Wash. 2d at 874 -75.
C. Jury Instructions
Smith next argues that the trial court erred in reading the jury an incomplete instruction
testify. The trial instructed, " A defendant is not required to
regarding Smith' to
s right not court
testify. You may not use the fact that a defendant has not testified to infer guilt or prejudice him
in any way." CP at 406. Even had Smith objected to the instruction at trial to preserve this
issue, he does not attempt to demonstrate how this instruction is incomplete.
1
No. 42509- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
D. Jury Trial Right: Third Strike Finding
Smith claims that the trial court violated his jury trial right when it imposed a third -
strike
sentence because the jury did not find that Smith had twice previously been convicted of strike
offenses. He asserts that his classification as a persistent offender must be proved to a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt, and that his classification as a persistent offender violates equal
protection. He does not demonstrate error.
Our state and federal courts have already rejected the claim that a. defendant is entitled to
have a jury decide whether he is a persistent offender. See State v. Smith, 150 Wash. 2d 135, 141-
43, 75 P.3d 934 ( 2003), cent. denied, 541 U.S. 909 ( 2004). Thus, his claim fails on this issue.
Our courts have also already rejected his claim that his classification as a persistent
See State
arbitrarily discriminates between two
offender classes of similarly situated recidivists.
v. Brooks, 165 Wn.
Reyes - App. 193, 206 -07, 267 P.3d 465 ( 2011), review granted on other
grounds by 175 Wash. 2d 1020 ( 2012). Smith' s claim fails.
E. Ineffective Assistance
Smith instances ineffective of counsel. He raises general
finally claims of assistance
claims relating to defense counsel' s failure to object to unspecified points at trial, unspecified
equal protection violations, improperly suppressed evidence, the State' s failure to disclose
evidence, and failure to request evidentiary hearings. His general, nonspecific claims fail to
demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice. Therefore, his ineffective assistance claims fail.
17
No. 425 09- 2- II/No. 42522 -0 -II/
No. 42708 -7 -II
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
Johanson, A.C. J.
18