State v. J.G.

1

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. J.G. Appellant.

No. 57188-9-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

March 5, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Che J.

J.G appeals the trial court's ruling denying the suppression of evidence due to an unlawful stop of his vehicle, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to enter written findings and conclusions under both CrR 3.6 and JuCR 7.11 and that the evidence was insufficient to support a resisting arrest guilty adjudication. In January 2022, in the early morning hours, Deputy Kolby Schreier was on patrol when he observed a slow-moving vehicle near a group of mailboxes. Suspicious of possible mail theft, Schreier ran the vehicle's license plate and learned that an individual named J.G. had recently purchased the vehicle but had not transferred the title within 45 days and that J.G. had a third degree suspended license.

When the vehicle began to make a three-point turn, Schreier exited his patrol vehicle and approached the vehicle on foot. Schreier did not engage his emergency lights. After repeatedly announcing his presence and knocking on the driver's window of the slow-moving vehicle, Schreier struck the driver's side window with his flashlight, causing it to shatter.

Schreier subsequently identified J.G. as the driver. J.G. refused to exit the vehicle. J.G. was charged with one count of resisting arrest, one count of obstructing a law enforcement officer, one count of third degree driving while license suspended, and one count of failure to transfer title within 45 days. The trial court denied J.G.'s CrR 3.6 motion to suppress and found J.G. guilty of one count of resisting arrest, one count of driving while license suspended, and one count of failure to transfer title. The trial court did not enter written findings and conclusions under either CrR 3.6^[1] or JuCR 7.11(d).^[2]

We hold that (1) the trial court's oral CrR 3.6 ruling is sufficient to permit our review, (2) the trial court did not err in denying J.G.'s motion to suppress, and (3) in the absence of written findings under JuCR 7.11(d), we decline to reach the merits of J.G.'s sufficiency of the evidence claim. Consequently, we affirm in part and remand in part for entry of findings and conclusions regarding J.G.'s adjudications.

We retain this case so that following entry of findings and conclusions, J.G. may resubmit a brief addressing his sufficiency of the evidence claim in light of the written findings and conclusions. The State will likewise have an opportunity to respond.

FACTS

I. Background

In January 2022, just before 1:00 a.m., Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Kolby Schreier was on patrol. The ground was covered in snow and the roads were icy. While on patrol, Schreier observed a slow-moving vehicle near a group of mailboxes. Suspecting possible mail crimes, Schreier pulled up behind the vehicle but did not activate his emergency lights.^[3]

Schreier ran the vehicle's license plate number on his in-vehicle computer. The return information listed the vehicle as having been sold to J.G. more than 45 days earlier. The return further indicated that title to the vehicle had not been transferred. The return included J.G.'s name, date of birth, and an incident number indicating that J.G. had previously been warned that his driver's license was suspended. Schreier also learned that J.G. had a third degree suspended license.

Schreier continued to follow the vehicle down a dirt road and it attempted to make a three-point turn. When the vehicle was about ten feet away and perpendicular to Schreier's patrol vehicle, Schreier exited his patrol vehicle and approached the vehicle on foot. Schreier did not engage his emergency lights.

As Schreier approached the vehicle, he observed the driver to be a "young black male." Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 23. Backlit by his patrol vehicle's headlights, Schreier shined his flashlight on his uniform and announced his presence. Tapping on the driver's side window, Schreier repeatedly announced "sheriff's office" and instructed the driver to stop their car; in these interactions, Schreier spoke in an increasingly loud voice. RP at 25. Standing on a one-lane gravel drive, Schreier "maneuvered a few times for officer safety reasons" while standing next to the vehicle. RP at 25. Schreier thought that the driver was pretending not to see him as the driver gave the officer a "peripheral look" but never fully turned to look at him. RP at 26.

After giving one last announcement to stop the vehicle, Schreier "transitioned [his] flashlight to [his] right hand and struck the driver's window . . . causing it to shatter." RP at 30-31. The driver accelerated and their vehicle slid into a ditch.

Schreier instructed the driver to step out of the vehicle, but the driver did not do so. Schreier asked, "[Y]ou're [J.G.], correct[?]" and "[the driver] said yes." RP at 35. Schreier advised J.G. he was under arrest and again told J.G. to step out of the vehicle. After the arrival of Sergeant Ryan Menday, J.G. exited the vehicle and was taken into custody.

The State charged J.G. with one count of resisting arrest, one count of obstructing a law enforcement officer, one count of third degree driving while license suspended, and one count of failure to transfer title within 45 days after the date of delivery of a vehicle.

II. Procedural History

A. CrR 3.6 Suppression Hearing

In February 2022, J.G. moved to suppress all of the evidence obtained as a result of his seizure.^[4] J.G. argued that the traffic stop was a racially motivated pretextual stop and exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry^[5] stop.

After Schreier's testimony and hearing counsels' arguments, the trial court articulated the following-a vehicle was driving very slowly at 1:00 a.m. in the snow and ice, in a neighborhood near a string of mailboxes. The officer ran the license plate and found the vehicle title had not been transferred within 45 days after the date of delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to a person named J.G. whose driving privilege was suspended in the third degree and who had been warned about the suspension in November 2021. Based on this, the officer had "reasonable suspicion then to determine who this driver was and whether it was [J.G.]." RP at 74-75.

The officer had no idea that the driver was Black until he started to approach the vehicle and his lights were shining on the vehicle. The officer "did nothing that had anything to do with any ethnicity or race or anything like that." RP at 75. The officer had not identified the driver so he could not simply mail a citation nor forward anything to the prosecutor. RP at 75. The trial court concluded, "This was not a pretext stop at all . . . what happened here . . . would not have been unusual for this to happen with anybody, anybody sitting in that car and doing exactly what happened here . . . [J.G.] wasn't going to let the officer identify him and he was trying to get away and he did everything he could to do that and got stuck in the ditch." RP at 78. The trial court denied the motion to suppress.

The trial court did not enter written findings and conclusions on the suppression hearing.

B. Adjudication and Disposition

In March 2022, the trial court held an adjudicatory hearing. The court incorporated Schreier's testimony from the suppression hearing into the trial record. In addition to further testimony from Schreier, J.G. testified.

Prior to closing arguments, J.G. renewed his motion to suppress. The trial court denied J.G.'s motion. During its oral ruling concerning J.G.'s guilt, the trial court referenced the suppression hearing and revisited the issue of pretextual stops.

The trial court found J.G. guilty of one count of resisting arrest, one count of driving while license suspended, and one count of failure to transfer title. The trial court found that the State failed to prove that J.G. obstructed a law enforcement officer. The trial court imposed a standard range disposition of eight months of community supervision.

J.G. appeals. As of the date of this opinion, the trial court has not entered written findings or conclusions.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion to Suppress

J.G. argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and not entering written findings and conclusions; J.G. further argues that the stop was pretextual and improper under Terry.

A. Standard of Review

In "reviewing a trial court's denial of a CrR 3.6 motion to suppress evidence, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings of fact and whether those findings of fact support the conclusions of law." State v. Richards, 11 Wn.App. 2d 84, 87, 450 P.3d 1238 (2019). We review de novo conclusions of law concerning the suppression of evidence. State v. Arreola, 176 Wn.2d 284, 291, 290 P.3d 983 (2012).

B. The Oral Ruling Is Sufficient to Permit Appellate Review

J.G. argues that because the trial court failed to enter findings on his suppression motion, we must remand for the entry of written findings and conclusions under CrR 3.6 so as to allow for meaningful review.^[6] We disagree.

Under CrR 3.6(b), the trial court must "enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law" after conducting an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress. The trial court's failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law is error; however, "such error is harmless if the trial court's oral findings are sufficient to permit appellate review." Richards, 11 Wn.App. 2d at 87.

Here although the trial court erred in failing to enter written findings and conclusions under CrR 3.6(b), such error is harmless in light of the trial court's comprehensive oral ruling. The trial court's oral ruling contained numerous factual...