State Of Washington v. John Anthony Chacon, Ii ( 2015 )

FACED
COURT OFAPPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHING '
2015 Al"
28 AIM 8. 25
DIVISION II
S
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 46363 -6 -II
rl
Respondent,
V.
JOHN ANTHONY CHACON II, UNPUBLISHED OPE
MELNICK, J. — John Anthony Chacon II appeals his convictions of malicious harassment,
assault in the fourth degree, and burglary in the second degree, arguing that the charging document
was constitutionally deficient, that one of the trial court' s preliminary instructions to the jury was
erroneous, and that the trial court' s imposition of attorney fees as part of his legal financial
obligations ( LFOs) violated his Sixth Amendment rights. We hold that the charging document
sets forth the essential elements of Chacon' s offenses, that the trial court' s preliminary instruction
did not amount to constitutional error, and that Chacon waived the right to challenge his LFOs by
not objecting to them during sentencing. We affirm the convictions and sentence.
FACTS
On March 7, 2014, Chacon entered a Centralia coffee shop where Tessa Alberts worked.
He ordered. milk and a biscotti from her. The interaction between Alberts and Chacon was cordial;
they have mutual friends in common. Chacon took his order and walked to the back of the shop.
Several months earlier, shop owner Justin Page had told Chacon to leave the coffee shop
and never return. When Page saw Chacon on March 7, he told Chacon to leave immediately. After
Chacon requested a to -go cup for his milk, Page walked up to the counter to get the cup and Chacon
followed. When Chacon received the cup, his demeanor changed. He said something and threw
46363 -6 -II
a crumpled piece of paper that hit Alberts in the chest. Chacon' s behavior shocked the customers
in line.
Alberts picked up the paper and opened it. It showed a photograph of a dead African
American man hanging by a noose. Alberts, the only person of color in the shop at the time, was
stunned and upset.
The State charged Chacon, by second amended information, with malicious harassment,
assault in the fourth degree, and burglary in the second degree. The information described the
harassment and assault charges as follows:
Count I
MALICIOUS HARASSMENT
On or about the 7th day of March, 2014, in the County of Lewis, State of
Washington, the above- named defendant, because of his or her perception of a
person' s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
or mental, physical, or sensory handicap, did maliciously and intentionally ( 1)
cause physical injury to that person or another person, and/or (3). threaten a specific
person or group of persons, and place that person or members of the specific group
of persons in reasonable fear of harm to person or property, and made the threat in
a context, or under such circumstances, wherein a reasonable person would foresee
that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to carry
out the threat; contrary to the Revised Code of Washington 9A.36.080.
Count II
ASSAULT IN THE FOURTH DEGREE
On or about March 7, 2014, in the County of Lewis, State of Washington,
the above- named defendant did intentionally assault another person; contrary to
Revised Code of Washington 9A.36. 041( 1).
Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 3.
After swearing in the jury, the trial court gave some oral preliminary instructions that began
with these statements:
2
46363 -6 -II
First, don' t jump to By definition there are at least two sides
conclusions.
to every case.
Listen carefully to all the evidence before starting to draw your
conclusions.
Report of Proceedings at 11. The court provided several additional instructions, some of which
explained the presumption of innocence, the State' s burden of proving the elements of each crime
beyond a reasonable doubt, and the definition of reasonable doubt. The court also informed the
jury that Chacon was not required to introduce evidence.
Alberts and Page testified to the facts set forth above, and Chacon testified that he had
never been told he could not return to the coffee shop. Chacon admitted that he became upset
when Page told him to leave and that he thought he was being discriminated against because he
was homeless. Chacon added that he took a picture he had found elsewhere and threw it at Alberts
because he wanted to show her what discrimination looks like.
The jury found Chacon guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed a sentence of 13
months as well as LFOs that included $ 1, 800 in attorney fees. Chacon appeals his convictions and
his LFOs.
ANALYSIS
I. CHARGING DOCUMENT
Chacon contends that his charging document was constitutionally deficient because it
failed to include critical facts; specifically, the name of the malicious harassment victim and the.
assault victim. We review this challenge de novo. State v. Williams, 162 Wash. 2d 177, 182, 170
P.3d 30 ( 2007).
An information must contain all essential elements of a crime to give the accused proper .
notice of the crime charged so that he can prepare an adequate defense. Williams, 162 Wash. 2d at
183; State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d 93, 101, 812 P.2d 86 ( 1991). To satisfy this requirement, the
3
46363 -6 -II
information must allege every element of the charged offense and the facts supporting the
elements. State v. Nonog, 169 Wash. 2d 220, 226, 237 P.3d 250 ( 2010).
We distinguish. between charging documents that are constitutionally deficient and those
that are merely vague. State v. Leach, 113 Wash. 2d 679, 686- 87, 782 P.2d 552 ( 1989). A
constitutionally deficient information is subject to dismissal for failure to state an offense by
omitting allegations of the essential elements constituting the offense charged. Leach, 113 Wash. 2d
at 686- 87. An information that states each statutory. element of a crime, but is vague as to some
other matter, may be corrected under a bill of particulars. Leach, 113 Wash. 2d at 687. A defendant
may not challenge an information for vagueness on appeal if he did not request a bill of particulars
at trial. Leach, 113 Wash. 2d at 687.
When a charging document is challenged for the first time on appeal, as it is here, we must
construe it liberally in favor of its validity. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 105. In applying this liberal
construction standard, we read the words in the charging document as a whole and consider
whether the necessary facts appear in any form. Williams, 162 Wash. 2d at 185; Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d
at 109. If they do, we consider whether the defendant was "` nonetheless actually prejudiced by
the inartful language which caused a lack of notice."' Williams, 162 Wash. 2d at 185 ( quoting
Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 105- 06).
An information may rely on the language of a statute if the statute defines the offense with
certainty. Leach, 113 Wash. 2d at 686. There is no additional requirement that the State allege facts
beyond those that support the elements or that the State describe the facts with great specificity.
State v.. Winings, 126 Wash. App. 75, 85, 107 P.3d 141 ( 2005).
The information in this case charged in the language of the malicious harassment and
assault statutes. It alleged that on or about March 7, 2014, Chacon acted because of his perception
19
46363 -6 -II
of a person' s race [ or] color," and threatened " a specific person or group of persons." CP at 2;
RCW 9A. 36. 080. It alleged further that Chacon " did intentionally assault another person." CP at
3; RCW 9A.36. 041( 1). This language sufficiently apprised Chacon of the elements of the charged
crimes and the conduct that constituted those crimes.
Chacon complains that the failure to identify the specific victim of the malicious
harassment and the assault rendered the information vague and indefinite. But criminal statutes
that protect a particular class of persons do not require that the particular victim be named. See
City of Seattle v. Termain, 124 Wn. App. 798, 805, 103 P.3d 209 ( 2004) ( because violation of no -
contact order is committed only by contact with particular person or location, such facts must be
included in information). None of the statutes under which Chacon was charged requires a specific
victim. Accordingly, if he did not know who the victim was, Chacon could have requested a bill
of particulars. See State v. Plano, 67 Wn. App: 674, 678- 80, 838 P.2d 1145 ( 1992) ( name of
assault victim was not essential element and could have been provided by bill of particulars).
Having found that the information contained all of the essential elements, we would
normally proceed to the second prong ofthe Kjorsvik test to ask whether vague or inartful language
prejudiced the defendant. 117 Wash. 2d at 106. But Chacon has not argued that he was actually
prejudiced. Because Chacon' s information included all essential elements, we need not address
this prong. See Termain; 124 Wash. App. at 803 ( if charging document fails essential elements test,
prejudice test is not reached). The information provided Chacon sufficient notice of the charged
offenses and his allegation of vagueness is waived.
II. PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION
Chacon next challenges the trial court' s preliminary instruction to the jury that "[ b] y
definition there are at least two sides to every case." RP at 11. Chacon argues that with this
5
46363 -6 -II
statement, the trial court infringed on his due process right to a fair trial by leading the jury to
expect something from the defense and subtly shifting the burden of proof. Chacon did not object
to this instruction during trial but argues that he may challenge it for the first time on appeal
because the instruction constitutes manifest constitutional error. RAP 2. 5( a).
We generally will not consider an issue that the defendant did not raise in the trial court.
RAP 2. 5( a); State v. O' Hara, 167 Wash. 2d 91, 97- 98, 217 P.3d 756 ( 2009). An exception to this
rule exists for manifest errors that affect a constitutional right. RAP 2. 5( a)( 3). To fall within this
exception, the defendant must identify. a constitutional error and show how the alleged error
actually affected his or her rights at trial. State v. Kirkman, 159 Wash. 2d 918, 926- 27, 155 P.3d 125
2007). After determining that the error is of constitutional magnitude, we must determine whether
it is manifest. O' Hara, 167 Wash. 2d at 99. " Manifest" under RAP 2. 5( a)( 3) requires a showing of
actual prejudice unless structural error occurred. State v. Koss, 181 Wash. 2d 493, 503 n. 6, 334 P.3d
1042 ( 2014).
Our Supreme Court recently examined whether a different preliminary instruction .
constituted manifest constitutional error. State v. Kalebaugh, _ P. 3d _, 2015 WL 4136540.
At issue was a preliminary oral instruction that added language to the standard instruction on
reasonable doubt. Kalebaugh, 2015 WL 4136540, * 3 ( citing 11 WASHINGTON PRACTICE:
WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 4. 01, at 85 ( 3d ed. 2008) ( WPIC)). The
Kalebaugh court held that because the trial court misstated the law regarding reasonable doubt, it
would review the instruction under a manifest constitutional error standard. 2015 WL 4136540,
3. The court ultimately held, however, that the error was harmless. Kalebaugh, 2015 WL
4136540, * 3.
Cel
46363 -6 -II
The oral instruction challenged here does not compare to the instruction at issue in
Kalebaugh. The trial court' s initial statement that there are two sides to every case was simply
part of the court' s general directive to the jury to keep an open mind. Moreover, it was followed
by oral and written instructions that accurately conveyed the State' s burden of proof and the
definition of reasonable doubt. The court also informed the jury that Chacon was not required to
introduce any evidence and had no burden of proving that a reasonable doubt existed.
When viewed as a whole, the trial court' s instructions accurately informed the jury of the
standards that governed its determinations. See State v. Bennett, 161 Wash. 2d 303, 307, 165 P.3d
1241 ( 2007) ( we review instructions as a whole in determining whether the court accurately
informed the jury of the applicable law). We see nothing in the challenged preliminary instruction
that triggers a claim of constitutional error and consider this issue waived.
III. LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
Finally, Chacon argues that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to the
assistance of counsel by ordering him to pay attorney fees without inquiring into his ability to pay.
Chacon did not challenge the assessment of these fees or any of his other LFOs during sentencing
but argues that he may do so for the first time on appeal.
Chacon' s judgment and sentence states that the trial court considered his. ability to pay the
LFOs imposed. Chacon did not challenge this language or his LFOs during sentencing, so he may
not do so on appeal. State v. Lyle, _ P. 3d _, 2015 WL 4156773, at * 1 ( citing State v. Blazina,
174 Wn. App. 906, 911, 301 P.3d 492 ( 2013), remanded, 182 Wash. 2d 827, 344 P.3d 680 ( 2015)
affirming Court of Appeals' exercise of discretion to refuse to address issue raised for the first
time on appeal, but exercising its own discretion to reach the issue and remand to trial court for
further proceedings). Our decision in Blazina, issued before Chacon' s sentencing, provided notice
7
46363 -6 -II
that the failure to object to LFOs during sentencing waives a related claim of error on appeal. 174
Wn. App. at 911. As our supreme court noted, an appellate court may use its discretion to reach
unpreserved claims of error. Blazina, 182 Wash. 2d at 830. We decline to exercise such discretion
here, noting that our Supreme Court has rejected the claim of constitutional error that Chacon
attempts to raise. State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230, 239- 42, 930 P.2d 1213 ( 1997).
We affirm the judgment and sentence.
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.
0-00-. - ` _
Melnick, J.
I concur:
Johanson, C. J.
46363 -6 -II
BJORGEN, J. ( concurring) — For the reasons set out in my dissent in State v. Lyle,
P. 3d _, No. 46101 -3 -II, 2015 WL 4156773 ( Wash. Ct. App. July 10, 2015), I would reach
John Chacon' s legal financial obligations' challenge, even though he did not raise it during
sentencing. However, the majority in Lyle, a published decision, reached a contrary conclusion.
Lyle, P. 3d , No. 46101 -3 -II, 2015 WL 4156773 ( Wash. Ct. App. July 10, 2015). Unless
Lyle is overturned or its bases questioned by subsequent case law, I shall observe its result under
principles of stare decisis. Therefore, I concur in this decision with the reservation here
expressed.
BJC . GEN...
w