State v. Vanwinkle

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. BRANDON L. VANWINKLE, Appellant.

No. 31318-2-III

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

April 30, 2015

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — Brandon VanWinkle appeals his conviction for custodial assault, claiming he was incompetent to stand trial and represent himself. He also argues the trial court erred by failing to enter written findings of fact supporting its CrR 3.5 ruling. Because we can discern the basis of the trial court's CrR 3.5 ruling from its oral decision, we hold that the trial court's failure to enter written findings was harmless error. We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Mr. VanWinkle was competent to stand trial and was entitled to self-representation. We therefore affirm.

FACTS

While incarcerated at the Benton County Jail, Mr. VanWinkle assaulted a jail sergeant. The State charged him with custodial assault. At arraignment, Mr. VanWinkle objected to the court's appointment of counsel for him, stating, "I don't need no counsel. I am going to do this myself. [Counsel] will just get in my way." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Aug. 2, 2012) at 2. On August 9, 2012, Judge Craig Matheson addressed Mr. VanWinkle's request to waive counsel. Mr. VanWinkle confirmed that he wished to represent himself.

The court had the following exchange with Mr. VanWinkle:

THE COURT: ... [W]e need to address this issue on the attorney. If you're innocent, you need an attorney more than if you're guilty.

MR. VANWINKLE: No, it would just get in my way. I've been to business law.

THE COURT: How far did you go in college?

MR. VANWINKLE: Far enough to beat this case.

THE COURT: Did you finish high school?

MR. VANWINKLE: Oh, yeah.

THE COURT: Do you know anything? Do you know, for example, what you're facing in terms of punishment in this case?

MR. VANWINKLE: Most definitely. You just told me. Five years.

THE COURT: And do you know the standard range?

MR. VANWINKLE: That's neither here nor there really. It's really going—it's going to be real simple. It probably won't even make it past the [CrR] 3.5 hearing, but if you guys let it do it, then it does.

THE COURT: And you're able to read and write English?

MR. VANWINKLE: Very well.

THE COURT: And do you have some experience with the court system?

MR. VANWINKLE: Directly, yeah, a lot.

THE COURT: Do you understand that, if you come into court representing yourself, you will not be assisted by the judge?

MR. VANWINKLE: Yeah. I don't need no assistance.

THE COURT: And you will be held to the standard of a practicing attorney. So the errors you make will not be forgiven on appeal. Do you understand?

MR. VANWINKLE: Yeah, we won't have to worry about that.

RP (Aug. 9, 2012) at 3-4.

The trial court accepted Mr. VanWinkle's waiver of counsel, finding he had the ability, "at least nominally," to represent himself. RP (Aug. 9, 2012) at 4. The court advised Mr. VanWinkle that Michelle Alexander was available to assist him as standby counsel. Mr. VanWinkle responded, "OK. Yeah, I don't need that. Thank you, though.' RP (Aug. 9, 2012) at 6.

On August 23, 2012, the parties were back in court before Judge Matheson for a CrR 3.5 hearing. The State moved to continue the hearing because Ms. Alexander and one of the State's witnesses were unavailable. Mr. VanWinkle advised the court that he did not need Ms. Alexander to be present because "I'm pro se, and I don't need a lawyer present. I am the lawyer, and I am not even going to have her at the trial." RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 8. Mr. VanWinkle then became agitated and advised the judge, "This is your courtroom, you're working for me." RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 9. After the court advisedMr. VanWinkle the hearing was being continued one week, Mr. VanWinkle made multiple discovery demands, including that witness interviews be scheduled, that disciplinary records be turned over for jail officers involved in the incident, that criminal histories be provided for all witnesses, and that multiple witnesses be subpoenaed on his behalf, including "Mr. Obama" and Christina Aguilera. RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 11.

In response to Mr. VanWinkle's references to Ms. Aguilera and President Obama as witnesses, the State expressed concern about Mr. VanWinkle's competency. Mr. VanWinkle responded by telling the deputy prosecutor, "You might want to go read the Bible." RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 12. The court stated it would consider a motion for an evaluation at Eastern State Hospital, to which Mr. VanWinkle replied: "Do you guys know who I am?" RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 14. He then stated that he was "Jesus Christ. Resurrected" and that his "birthday's 7-11. I was born and weighed 7-11. If you guys don't know who I am, you better go read the Bible and go to Ezekiel 7:11,¹ and when you guys get done reading that tonight, you'll know what's going to happen." RP (Aug. 23, 2012) at 14. The court entered an order for a mental health evaluation.

On October 18, 2012, the parties were back in court after Dr. Randall Strandquist, a licensed psychologist at Eastern State Hospital completed an evaluation of Mr. VanWinkle. Dr. Strandquist concluded that Mr. VanWinkle did not have a mental disease or defect and had "the capacity to understand court proceedings and productively participate in his own defense." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 30. Dr. Strandquist's report concluded:

Over the course of the interview, Mr. Vanwinkle demonstrated that he has sufficient knowledge of court proceedings and the roles of the participants involved with these proceedings. He was able to explain the roles and responsibilities of the judge, defense attorney, prosecuting attorney, witness[es], and jury.

He is able to identify his attorney. . . .

Mr. VanWinkle knows and can explain the concept of a plea bargain. He is aware of his plea options regarding these charges. He knows that sentencing typically follows a guilty plea and a trial typically follows a not guilty plea. He was able to correctly identify the crimes for which he has been charged . . . .

Mr. Vanwinkle insisted that he is innocent of the charges. He said he intends on defending himself by demonstrating the lack of evidence and challenging the credibility of the alleged victim. There was no delusional or psychotic content when discussing his charges or his plan for defense.

CP at 33-34.

Dr. Strandquist described Mr. VanWinkle as having antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic traits. His report noted that Mr. VanWinkle had no history of beingtreated for or diagnosed with any mental health disorders. The report detailed Mr. VanWinkle's behavior while at Eastern State Hospital, including being fully oriented and alert, friendly and cooperative at times, but then becoming rude and threatening when ward rules and limitations were enforced. The report documented that over the course of several days Mr. VanWinkle threatened staff, attempted to assault a staff member, and assaulted another patient.

At an October 18, 2012 hearing to address Mr. VanWinkle's competency to stand trial, Ms. Alexander addressed the court, stating that Mr. VanWinkle was adamant that he wanted to represent himself. She also stated that if she was representing Mr. VanWinkle instead of acting only as standby counsel, she would request a second competency evaluation. The following exchange then took place:

THE COURT: We have a report indicating he's competent?

[THE STATE]: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Then, Mr. VanWinkle, I guess at this stage you can decide to have an additional evaluation with regard to your competency, or you can proceed to trial. How would you like to proceed?

MR. VANWINKLE: I have been ready for trial since this alleged assault. I actually when [sic] I went up there to do this evaluation.

THE COURT: I just need an answer to my question. Do you want an additional evaluation?

MR. VANWINKLE: I'm ready for trial right now.

THE COURT: Would you answer me on the record? Do you want an additional—

MR. VANWINKLE: Oh, no, your Honor, I don't need another—

THE COURT: Then we'll go to trial. We'll set trial dates.

RP (Oct. 18, 2012) at 15-16.

The court entered an order of competency.

On November 1, 2012, before Judge Robert Swisher, Ms. Alexander made a lengthy record that Mr. VanWinkle did not want her assistance as standby counsel and asked that she be removed from the case. Ms, Alexander also stated that she continued to believe that Mr. VanWinkle was not competent to stand trial. The court noted that competency had already been addressed by Judge Matheson at a prior hearing and declined to readdress it. The court ruled that Ms. Alexander would not be removed as standby counsel.

The court then proceeded to the CrR 3.5 hearing. The State called a total of four witnesses: the jail officer who was the victim of the assault and the three jail officers who were present when this occurred. Mr. VanWinkle cross-examined each of the officers, who all stated that he was yelling threatening and derogatory statements at them after they moved him to a new cell. All four also testified that Mr. VanWinkle's statements were not in response to any questions by jail officers. After being advised by the court about his rights regarding testifying at the CrR 3.5 hearing, Mr. VanWinkle elected not to testify. In closing argument, Mr. VanWinkle commented that "all [the officers'] stories are mix-matched. . . . And pretty much I'll bring in the files of all their statements. Theyare all three different statements. . . . So I mean I'm ready for trial, really," RP (Nov. 1, 2012) at 52. The court ruled that Mr. VanWinkle's statements were admissible, finding "[t]hey were not in response to questions." RP (Nov. 1, 2012) at 52.

Trial commenced on November 5, 2012, before Judge Bruce Spanner, Before calling in the jury, the court addressed security issues at trial and the State's motions in limine, Mr. VanWinkle repeated that he would not act out in front of a jury, stating that, "We're in trial today, and...