State v. Lauderdale (In re Pres. Restraint of Lauderdale)

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL RANDALL LAUDERDALE, Appellant.

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of MICHAEL RANDALL LAUDERDALE, Petitioner.

No. 37141-7-III

C/w No. 36744-4-III

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

December 24, 2020

COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION III, STATE OF WASHINGTON

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The court on its own motion finds that the unpublished opinion filed December 24, 2020, should be amended as follows:

The third sentence in the second paragraph on page 6 is amended to read:

The State's motion was heard by the Honorable Kristin Ferrera.

The last sentence in the last full paragraph on page 14 is amended to read:

He points to (1) the fact that at the hearing on the State's motion to limit his resentencing, Judge Ferrera briefly recessed to consult Judge Allan about her intention in ordering the resentencing, and (2) Judge Ferrera's apologies to Mr. Wood's family and friends for "having to go through this again."

The first sentence in the first full paragraph on page 15 is amended to read:

With respect to Judge Ferrera consulting Judge Allan, Mr. Lauderdale argues that defendants have a right "to have factual disputes resolved by a neutral fact finder."

The first sentence in the second full paragraph on page 15 is amended to read:

Mr. Lauderdale argues Judge Ferrera's apologies to Mr. Wood's family and friends demonstrated bias and argues that due process, the appearance of fairness doctrine and the Code of Judicial Conduct require a judge to disqualify herself if she is biased against a party or her impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PANEL: Judges Siddoway, Korsmo, Fearing

FOR THE COURT:

/s/_________

REBECCA L. PENNELL, Chief Judge

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SIDDOWAY, J. — Michael Lauderdale appeals the sentence of life without the possibility of parole imposed at his 2019 resentencing for an aggravated first degree murder he committed in 1994, when he was 19 years old. He contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize its discretion to impose a mitigated exceptional sentence, and his lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advocate for such a sentence.

In a personal restraint petition (PRP) that we consolidated with the appeal, Mr. Lauderdale argues that insufficient evidence supported the aggravating factor relied on bythe State in charging aggravated first degree murder: that the murder was committed in the course of, in furtherance of, or in immediate flight from the crime of rape in the first or second degree.

The trial court and defense counsel correctly concluded that life without the possibility of parole was the only sentence the court could impose. Mr. Lauderdale's PRP fails to present competent evidence that the State's evidence of aggravated first degree murder at his 1995 trial was insufficient.

We affirm Mr. Lauderdale's sentence and dismiss his PRP.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We draw basic facts about Michael Lauderdale's crime from this court's unpublished opinion in his original appeal.

On September 17, 1994, a jogger discovered the naked body of Jeremy Wood on Canyon Road Number Two in Wenatchee. State v. Lauderdale, 1996 WL 538806, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 1996). There was a couch in the vicinity. The sheriff's investigation collected evidence that included a tire track, drag marks, a condom wrapper, the victim's jeans turned inside out, ligatures on the victim's legs, and blood on the couch.

A sergeant with the Chelan County Sheriff's Office learned from Mr. Wood's family that he had gone to a party the night before. Persons present at the party reported that Mr. Wood left the party with Mr. Lauderdale, who was driving a car borrowed fromBrooc Adams. Mr. Lauderdale lived in a trailer in the backyard of Ms. Adams's family's home.

Mr. Lauderdale agreed to speak with a detective, and initially told him that he had driven Mr. Wood to the top of Fifth Street and dropped him off.

In a continued interview with another officer, however, Mr. Lauderdale stated that he and Mr. Wood had driven to Canyon Road Number Two, where they kissed and eventually had consensual anal sex on a couch they saw through a barbed wire fence. Mr. Lauderdale said that Mr. Wood's death was an accident: that after Mr. Lauderdale got in the car, Mr. Wood stopped to urinate, and when Mr. Lauderdale revved the engine as a joke, he accidentally ran over Mr. Wood. When he discovered Mr. Wood was dead, he pulled the body back to the couch to cover up the accident.

Investigators with the sheriff's department found Mr. Lauderdale's story inconsistent with the evidence and concluded a beating had occurred. Blood on a baseball bat later found 50 feet from where Mr. Wood's body was found proved to match a blood sample taken from Mr. Wood.

Dr. Gerald Rappe performed an autopsy on Mr. Wood from which he concluded that the cause of death was five blows to the head, which was the only significant injury. There were no marks on Mr. Wood's legs indicating any struggle against the ligatures. There was a bruise on his hand consistent with a defense wound. Dr. Rappe found feceson Mr. Wood's buttocks and inner thighs. Since Dr. Rappe found no trauma to Mr. Wood's anus or rectum, he believed sex occurred after the victim was dead.

Ms. Adams's stepfather, who owned the trailer in which Mr. Lauderdale lived, eventually identified the bloodied bat as his Louisville Slugger, pointing to his carved-in initials, J.S. Shortly before trial the defense received an additional police report revealing that Ms. Adams had used the bat the day Mr. Woods was killed, it was not in the car when she loaned it to Mr. Lauderdale, and it was not on the back porch when she looked for it a few days later. Mr. Lauderdale recognized that this evidence suggesting that he took the bat with him when he returned to the party was relevant to the issue of premeditation. Claiming surprise, he sought a continuance of trial, which was denied.

A jury found Mr. Lauderdale guilty of both first degree murder with aggravating factors and first degree felony murder. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. His appeal, in which he claimed only ineffective assistance of counsel, was unsuccessful.

Over 20 years later, in January 2019, Mr. Lauderdale filed a CrR 7.8 motion in which he raised two issues. The first was that his conviction for felony murder should be vacated on double jeopardy grounds. The second was that insufficient evidence was presented in support of the alleged aggravator that he committed the murder in the course of, in furtherance of, or in immediate flight from a first or second degree rape. Hepointed to the statement in this court's opinion on appeal that Dr. Rappe believed sex occurred after Mr. Wood was dead. While a crime, that would not be rape.

The trial court, the Honorable Lesley Allan, transferred the portion of Mr. Lauderdale's motion challenging evidence sufficiency to this court for consideration as a PRP. In moving for such a transfer, the State pointed out that despite an extensive search for the trial transcript, it could not be found; that Mr. Lauderdale had not made a substantial showing that he was entitled to relief or that resolution of the CrR 7.8 motion required a factual hearing; and that under the circumstances CrR 7.8(c)(2) required transfer. Judge Allan agreed that the State had made "what appears to be a diligent search for the transcript," "it appears that, based on the passage of time, it has been disposed of," and, "[i]t does not appear that there is any mechanism available now to accurately recreate it." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 83.

Having concluded that Mr. Lauderdale was entitled to have the felony murder conviction removed from his judgment and sentence, Judge Allan directed the State to prepare an amended judgment and sentence. In a letter to the parties, she stated that Mr. Lauderdale could sign and return the State's proposed amended judgment and sentence or, "In the alternative, the court will approve an order to transport Mr. Lauderdale to the Chelan County Regional Justice Center to appear for another sentencing hearing." CP at 84.

Mr. Lauderdale moved for appointment of counsel to represent him at resentencing. Judge Allan granted the motion.

The State then moved to limit the resentencing. Specifically, it asked that Mr. Lauderdale appear telephonically, that he be precluded from arguing for a change to the length of his sentence, and that he be denied allocution. The State's motion was heard by the Honorable Kristine Ferrera. Mr. Lauderdale's counsel opposed the motion in part, stating, "[E]ven if there is nothing the Court can do regarding a punishment as far as how much time he can get or anything, he's still allowed allocution." Report of Proceedings (RP) (May 30, 2019) at 23. Judge Ferrera ordered a resentencing that would include Mr. Lauderdale's right to allocute, but ruled that he was prohibited from arguing for a different sentence.

At a resentencing hearing conducted by Judge Ferrera two weeks later, defense counsel agreed that life without parole was the only possible sentence. Mr. Lauderdale apologized to the court and to those present for his crime and for reopening old wounds, discussed the rough start he had in life, and talked about the progress he had made in prison. Judge Ferrera apologized to the victim's friends and family for subjecting them to a second resentencing. She acknowledged that Mr. Lauderdale was doing the best he could in prison and encouraged him to stay on that path. An amended judgment and sentence was entered that identified only the aggravated first degree murder conviction and imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Mr. Lauderdale appealed. This court consolidated Mr. Lauderdale's PRP with the appeal.

ANALYSIS

DIRECT APPEAL

Relying on a number of United States Supreme Court and Washington decisions that consider current brain...