Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Maynard

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

December 17, 2013

The State of Washington, Appellant ,
v.
Christopher Nelson Maynard, Respondent

Page 546

PUBLISHED IN PART

Appeal from Cowlitz Superior Court. Docket No: 11-1-00860-3. Date filed: 02/21/2012. Judge signing: Honorable Stephen M Warning.

Susan I. Baur, Prosecuting Attorney, and Lacey L. Skalisky, Deputy, for appellant.

John A. Hays, for respondent.

AUTHOR: Jill M Johanson, A.C.J. George Fearing, J. concurs. Joel Penoyar, J. (Dissent).

OPINION

Page 547

Johanson, A.C.J.

[178 Wn.App. 414] ¶ 1 -- This case involves the loss of juvenile court jurisdiction. The State initially charged 17-year-old Christopher Nelson Maynard in juvenile court with six counts of malicious mischief. Although Maynard turned 18 while the case was pending, the juvenile court did not extend jurisdiction. Accordingly, the juvenile court dismissed, [178 Wn.App. 415] without prejudice, the charges for lack of jurisdiction. The State refiled the charges in adult criminal court. That court dismissed, with prejudice, the charges based on the State's preaccusatorial delay and ineffective assistance of defense counsel.

¶ 2 The State appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court erred by concluding that there was preaccusatorial delay, (2) dismissal is not the appropriate remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) substantial evidence does not support several factual findings. In the published portion, we hold that ineffective assistance of counsel and not preaccusatorial delay caused the loss of juvenile court jurisdiction; we reverse because retrial, not dismissal, is the appropriate remedy for a successful ineffective assistance claim. In the unpublished portion, we hold that substantial evidence supports the court's factual findings.

FACTS

¶ 3 Police arrested 17-year-old Maynard in August 2010 for painting graffiti on several businesses [1] and parks [2] in Woodland. The prosecutor's office received the police report in September 2010. The prosecutor asked the police for more information about the specific locations of painted property and requested photos in order to obtain probable cause to support a diversion referral. In November 2010, [3] the prosecutor forwarded the police reports to the juvenile court probation department for consideration for diversion. On December 10, 2010, [4] the juvenile court rejected Maynard's case for diversion. After reviewing the case again, the prosecutor determined that it needed more information to [178 Wn.App. 416] file charges and requested this information from police. Between January and June 2011, the State corresponded with police about restitution amounts owed to victims. The State charged Maynard with six counts of malicious mischief on July 7, 2011. Maynard was summoned to appear on July 12.

¶ 4 At Maynard's July 12 appearance, the juvenile court appointed counsel and scheduled an arraignment for the next week. On July 19, Maynard appeared and pleaded not guilty, and the court set pretrial for August 9 and trial for September 15. At Maynard's initial appearance and arraignment, nobody mentioned that he would turn 18 on August 1. On July 25, the prosecutor sent an offer to Maynard's attorney recommending a deferred disposition. The offer was set to expire on August 9. Maynard told his attorney that he would accept a deferred disposition. After sending the offer, the prosecutor noticed that Maynard was about to turn 18. The prosecutor then e-mailed Maynard's attorney, asking how she wanted to proceed, but Maynard's attorney did not respond. On August 1, Maynard turned 18 years old. At the pretrial hearing on August 9, the juvenile court dismissed, without prejudice, the charges for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 5 The State filed an information with the same charges in superior court, and the court appointed Maynard a new attorney. Maynard moved to dismiss all charges, arguing negligent preaccusatorial delay and ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed the charges with prejudice, finding that the delay violated Maynard's due process rights and that defense counsel was ineffective. The State appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. Preaccusatorial Delay

¶ 6 The State argues that the trial court erred by dismissing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.