Stutzke was charged with voyeurism, violation of a protection
order, felony stalking, and attempted residential burglary.
After Mr. Stutzke vacillated between exercising his rights to
appointed counsel and self-representation, the court
determined Mr. Stutzke had waived the right to counsel
through conduct. Mr. Stutzke then proceeded to represent
himself during a bench trial. He was convicted of all charges
with the exception of residential burglary. Mr. Stutzke now
appeals, arguing: (1) insufficient evidence supports the
voyeurism conviction, and (2) the court deprived him of the
right to counsel. He also raises some technical issues with
respect to his sentence. We affirm Mr. Stutzke's
convictions, but remand for resentencing.
Stutzke and Townshend families were longtime neighbors. After
Mr. Stutzke reached adulthood, he began exhibiting unwanted
attention toward Ms. Townshend. Ms. Townshend eventually
obtained an antiharassment protection order. The order
prohibited Mr. Stutzke from making contact with Ms. Townshend
or coming within 50 feet of her property. The order was set
to expire in 2015.
between Mr. Stutzke and Ms. Townshend came to a head on
August 16, 2013. Ms. Townshend awoke around 6:00 a.m. and
opened her bedroom blinds and window. She then returned to
bed and laid on top of the covers while naked. After briefly
dozing off, Ms. Townshend awoke to see Mr. Stutzke standing
at the open window, his hands resting on the window sill
while he stared at her. Ms. Townshend immediately went to
close the blinds but, in her haste and fear, she pulled the
blinds from the wall. Ms. Townshend shouted at Mr. Stutzke to
leave, but he did not. Mr. Stutzke never turned away or
averted his gaze. He did not appear frightened or nervous
when Ms. Townshend caught him. Mr. Stutzke remained fixated
on Ms. Townshend until she retreated to an area of the room
that was out of Mr. Stutzke's range of sight.
Townshend called the police to report Mr. Stutzke's
behavior. Mr. Stutzke was arrested shortly thereafter.
phase of proceedings
State charged Mr. Stutzke with voyeurism, violation of a
civil antiharassment protection order, stalking, and
attempted residential burglary. Mr. Stutzke was originally
released from custody pending trial. But he violated his
release terms and was remanded back into custody.
approximately two years, Mr. Stutzke was represented by the
same appointed attorney. Disposition of the case was delayed
to allow for two separate competency evaluations. Mr. Stutzke
was ultimately deemed competent to stand trial. During the
period the case was continued for the competency evaluations,
Mr. Stutzke waived his jury trial rights, but then rescinded
early December 2015, Mr. Stutzke appeared in court and asked
to dismiss his assigned counsel. Mr. Stutzke explained he
wanted to be released from custody so he could find a job and
hire a private attorney. Mr. Stutzke claimed the passage of
time was a reason for his release, since he had likely
already overserved any potential sentence. The court denied
Mr. Stutzke's release request, explaining the passage of
time was not a relevant consideration. The court informed Mr.
Stutzke his choice was to either go forward with existing
counsel or proceed pro se. The court then began to advise Mr.
Stutzke of the dangers and disadvantages of waiving counsel,
but Mr. Stutzke equivocated. He stated he wanted an attorney,
just not the one currently assigned. The court ultimately
ruled Mr. Stutzke's current attorney would remain on the
case as there was no basis for appointing substitute counsel.
of counsel and self-representation
December 15, 2015, Mr. Stutzke filed a motion to proceed pro
se. The court engaged Mr. Stutzke in a full colloquy
regarding the potential consequences of a conviction and the
dangers and disadvantages of waiving the right to counsel.
Mr. Stutzke again asked to be released so he could hire
private counsel. This was denied. The court again informed
Mr. Stutzke his choice was either to remain with his current
counsel or proceed pro se. Mr. Stutzke opted for the latter.
The court warned Mr. Stutzke that once he waived his right to
counsel, his waiver could apply for the entire case, even if
Mr. Stutzke grew to have second thoughts. Mr. Stutzke
indicated he understood. The court then permitted Mr. Stutzke
to represent himself and also appointed standby counsel.
Stutzke's conduct as a pro se litigant was poor. At one
point, he had to be brought to court in restraints after
refusing to come voluntarily. He also refused to meet with
the prosecutor to exchange discovery. The trial court decided
to hold regular status conferences with Mr. Stutzke in order
to ensure his case moved forward.
his pretrial status conferences, Mr. Stutzke continued to
request release from custody. The court repeatedly denied Mr.
Stutzke's requests, explaining Mr. Stutzke posed a risk
of nonappearance and that the passage of time did not change
this circumstance. In addition to repeatedly asking for
release, Mr. Stutzke asked for continuances to allow for
adequate preparation. The trial court worked with Mr. Stutzke
regarding his trial preparation requests. Trial was set for
February 29, 2016.
of self-representation and appointment of new counsel
February 18, 2016, Mr. Stutzke appeared in court for a
pretrial conference. He indicated he would like to have
appointed counsel represent him at trial. The trial court
expressed concern Mr. Stutzke was delaying the proceedings by
vacillating on the issue of counsel. But the court ultimately
decided to appoint counsel out of an abundance of caution.
Mr. Stutzke's standby attorney was appointed as full
legal counsel. Trial was then continued to May 23, 2016. Mr.
Stutzke renewed his request for pretrial release based on the
passage of time. Once again, that request was denied.
after receiving appointed counsel, Mr. Stutzke began to
complain about his attorney's performance. The
accusations started on May 13 when Mr. Stutzke alleged his
attorney smelled of alcohol. The court determined this
complaint was unfounded. Three days later, Mr. Stutzke came
back to court. His attorney reported Mr. Stutzke had refused
an attorney-client meeting and requested the attorney's
supervisor appoint new counsel. Mr. Stutzke continued to
criticize his attorney's conduct and, at this point,
requested self-representation. The court passed over this
request and ordered Mr. Stutzke's current attorney to
stay on the case. The court informed Mr. Stutzke he could not
keep changing his mind regarding appointment of counsel. The
court concluded the hearing after Mr. Stutzke became verbally
of counsel by conduct
23, 2016-the date scheduled for trial-Mr. Stutzke's
attorney brought a motion requesting leave to withdraw.
Counsel advised the court that Mr. Stutzke had persisted in
his alcohol allegations, Spokane County Risk Management was
now involved, and an investigation was imminent. Mr.
Stutzke's attorney and counsel for the State both
expressed concern that Mr. Stutzke's actions placed him
in an adversarial position not only with his current attorney
but the entire public defender's office. Mr.
Stutzke's attorney ...