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.

In re Personal Restraint of Sanchez

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3

January 26, 2017

In re the Matter of the Personal Restraint of JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ, Jr.

         ORDER WITHDRAWING OPINION

          GEORGE FEARING CHIEF JUDGE

         The court on its own motion finds that the opinion filed January 24, 2017, should be withdrawn;

         THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed January 24, 2017, is hereby withdrawn and a new opinion shall be filed this day.

          Lawrence-Berrey, J.

         Jose Luis Sanchez, Jr., seeks relief from personal restraint imposed for his 2008 Yakima County convictions of two counts of aggravated first degree murder and other felony crimes. The convictions stem from his participation in a February 20, 2005 home invasion robbery and execution-style shootings at the apartment of Ricky Causor and Michelle Kublic. The shootings killed Causor and the couple's 3-year-old daughter and wounded Kublic and their 18-month-old daughter. At trial, Kublic positively identified Sanchez as the shooter, as did Sanchez's codefendant Mario Mendez who previously pleaded guilty and testified for the State. Sanchez filed a direct appeal and this court affirmed the judgment and sentence. State v. Sanchez, 171 Wn.App. 518, 288 P.3d 351 (2012), review denied, 177 Wn.2d 1024 (2013).

         In this timely filed personal restraint petition (PRP), Sanchez contends he is entitled to a new trial on grounds that (1) he was denied his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution during a critical stage when he was arraigned without counsel, and (2) in the alternative, his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to appear and object to his being filmed by media at his arraignment proceeding. We disagree with his contentions and dismiss his PRP.

         FACTS

         Police arrested Sanchez on February 23, 2005, after acting on anonymous telephone tips that he was responsible for the Causor murders. The next day, he appeared for a single court hearing on two matters: (1) arraignment on an outstanding 2004 matter charging him with certain felonies, and (2) a preliminary appearance in the current murder case. The prosecutor was present but no attorney appeared for Sanchez. First addressing the 2004 matter, the court advised Sanchez of his rights, which he acknowledged he understood before requesting that the court appoint counsel. The prosecutor interjected that an attorney had already been appointed on the 2004 matter, but that Yakima County public defender/director of assigned counsel, Daniel Fessler, was requesting that the court appoint him on both matters. The court did so. The court then explained to Sanchez that he was being held under investigation on suspicion for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, first degree robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm. Based on a police probable cause declaration showing that acquaintances of Sanchez had implicated him in the robbery and murders, the court found probable cause to believe Sanchez committed one or more crimes. The probable cause declaration also stated that "victim Michelle Kublic was shown a photo montage, which included 'Gato's' photo, whose name is Mario Mendez. She positively identified him as one of the males who entered her house and shot them." Pers. Restraint Pet., App. C, Decl. of Probable Cause at 6. The court set Sanchez's bail at $5 million and scheduled his arraignment for February 28.

         On February 28, 2005, the State formally charged Sanchez and Mendez (who still remained at large) with seven crimes including two counts of aggravated first degree murder, which carried a possible death penalty. That day, Sanchez and an unknown number of other defendants appeared in superior court for a group arraignment hearing. The court explained their rights and noted that each "has a lawyer appointed to represent you or you might have hired a private attorney." Pers. Restraint Pet., App. B, Report of Proceedings (RP) (Feb. 28, 2005) at 2-3. The court then explained the process for the arraignment hearing:

[W]hen your name is called we'll ask you to step up to the counter in front of this microphone. The prosecutor will hand you a piece of paper called an information. That lists the charges. She will read that to you if you want her to read it out loud. You don't have to have it read out loud.
After that, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. I'm going to ask you if you understand the charges and if you have any questions about the rights I have just explained.
If you don't have questions, I am going to hand you an order. On the order there is the next two dates that you need to be in court. One is for an omnibus hearing. The next is for your trial.
Many of you have not had a chance to talk to your lawyer yet, if it's appointed counsel. You're [sic] lawyer is going to get a packet of information from the prosecutor's office in the next couple of days. They will schedule a time to come and meet with you.
At the end of all this I'm going to hand you that order and ask you to sign the order at the bottom of the page. By signing the order you're not admitting that you have done anything wrong. It lets us know that you have gotten a copy of the paperwork today.

Pers. Restraint Pet., App. B, RP (Feb. 28, 2005) at 3-4.

         The court then called Sanchez's case. The court's prior explanation of rights to the defendants included the right to counsel, but did not specify any right to have counsel present during the current hearing. No attorney appeared for Sanchez. The prosecutor recited the seven charges and gave Sanchez a copy of the information. Sanchez acknowledged to the court that he understood the charges, and he declined a full reading of the information. He said he had no questions about the rights previously explained to him. The court entered an order setting dates for the omnibus hearing and trial. Sanchez signed the order and received a copy.

         No one broached the subject of entering a plea during the arraignment. The court apparently entered summary not guilty pleas for Sanchez. No concerns regarding the arraignment procedure were ever voiced during the remainder of the pretrial and trial proceedings.

         The case was high profile in the community and had already generated considerable media coverage. In his declaration filed with this petition, Sanchez states he appeared at the arraignment without counsel and in jail clothes and shackles. He states "there were lots of news media people and cameras, " and he "observed people photographing my face and filming the proceedings when I was in court that day." Pers. Restraint Pet., App. D at 2. He states he did not want to be filmed but did not know there was any way to prevent this from happening. The report of proceedings for the arraignment hearing is silent as to the presence of media.

         Meanwhile, Michelle Kublic had remained hospitalized for multiple gunshot wounds until she was released to her father's home on February 26. The following facts quoted from the direct appeal opinion detail Kublic's various initial descriptions of ...


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.