State v. Williams

3 Wn.App.2d 1008

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. COREY JAVON WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 34171-2-III

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3

April 3, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SIDDOWAY, J.

Corey Javon Williams-aka Corey Javon Pugh, Sr., who asked to be addressed as Corey Pugh, Sr. in the trial below^[1]-appeals, making eight assignments of error to his residential burglary and second degree theft convictions and his sentence. We find no error or abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2013, Kennewick police detective Rich Runge investigated a series of unauthorized "rentals" of homes by Corey Javon Williams. Mr. Williams had identified homes that were unoccupied for a period of time, rekeyed them, falsely represented to prospective tenants that he owned them, and then rented them out. Mr. Williams ultimately pleaded guilty to criminal trespass, four counts of second degree theft attempted second degree theft, and third degree theft.

Following his release from prison, in September 2015, Mr. Williams acting as a principal for his limited liability company, C Williams Group, LLC, filed liens against two other unoccupied Kennewick residential properties and sought to rent them out. One was located at 523 North Ely Street, with title held by Joseph and Gail Timmins. The other was at 2402 West Bruneau Avenue, with title held by Catlino and Barbara Leija.

Detective Runge determined that Mr. and Mrs. Leija had been dead since at least 2013. He determined that the North Ely Street residence was being occupied by Krista Ironbear pursuant to a rental agreement offered her by the C. Williams Group, LLC in September 2015. An $800 deposit and $1, 000 for the first month's rent had been paid to Mr. Williams at that time by Ms. Ironbear's mother, Laura Gillette.

The State initially charged Mr. Williams with two counts of residential burglary for his unauthorized activities at the two residences. The affidavit of probable cause filed in support of the motion for an arrest warrant stated that in a conversation with Detective Runge, Mr. Williams claimed to own the two properties by virtue of the liens he had filed against them. It stated that Mr. Williams had rented the North Ely property to Ms. Ironbear in September 2015 and attempted to rent the Leija property to two men who paid him a deposit but then became suspicious and backed out.

When arraigned, Mr. Williams told the court he wished to proceed pro se. A Faretta^[2] inquiry followed:

THE COURT: Do you wish to be represented by an attorney in these matters?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I do not.

THE COURT: You wish to represent yourself?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

. . . .

THE COURT: Well, what we will do now is go through the colloquy regarding self-representation. . . .

. . . .

THE COURT: Sir, you understand if you represent yourself you will be held to the same standards as an attorney?

MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

THE COURT: You understand you will be held to the same standard as to your knowledge of the law and court rules and the presentation of evidence?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Sir, what is the highest grade you completed in school?

MR. WILLIAMS: I have three years of college.

THE COURT: Are you familiar with the rules of evidence in the State of Washington.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Can you tell me how you are familiar with them?

MR. WILLIAMS: I studied criminal law and business law at Columbia Basin College.

THE COURT: Are you familiar with the Revised Code of Washington? In particular the Revised Code of Washington as it relates to the this [sic] charge?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Can you tell me how you are familiar with that?

MR. WILLIAMS: I believe that I've had prior 7.8 motions with this prior RCW with another Alaska statute which I fought in the Supreme Court.

THE COURT: Supreme Court of which state, sir?

MR. WILLIAMS: Washington.

THE COURT: And when you say 7.8, you are referring to the Washington Criminal Rule 7.8?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.

. . . .

THE COURT: Given that information, you also understand that residential burglary is a class B felony as well?

MR. WILLIAMS: I do.

THE COURT: So again subject to the same potential maximum of 10 years or a fine not to exceed $20, 000. You are aware of that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Without agreeing that your criminal history is calculation is [sic] correct you heard [the prosecutor's] recitation of what the guideline range is believed to be in the State of Washington?

MR. WILLIAMS: Let the record reflect that I object.

THE COURT: With that in mind, is it your desire to represent yourself?

MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. As a secured party, I am.

. . . .

THE COURT: At this time I'm satisfied you are aware of the nature of the charge-and just to perfect the record again here, sir. You indicated you were aware of the statute with respect to theft of a motor vehicle. Are you also familiar with the Revised Code of Washington and the elements as they relate to residential burglary?

MR. WILLIAMS: As a secured party, sir, I am aware and I do object to that.

THE COURT: Sir, I will have to ask you what you mean by the term secured party?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm secured party in the State of Washington. My organization is secured party C. Williams LLC. I've been brought before this Court in that the Court is aware of my secured party status. Nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. With that said, at this time I'm going to find that you are aware of the nature of the charge. You are aware you will be held to the same standard as would an attorney before the Court. And I will allow you to represent yourself, sir. You understand at any time should you wish to be represented by an attorney you may make such request to the Court and you will be entitled to representation even if the Court determines that you do not have the funds to retain an attorney the court would have the authority to appoint an attorney for you at no cost to you upon your request. You understand that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Report of Proceedings (RP) (Dec. 28, 2015) at 3-9.

At a hearing on motions that took place over two weeks before trial, the court cautioned Mr. Williams further, stating:

Mr. Williams, you will recall when I-when we went through a colloquy and I allowed you to represent yourself, I indicated to you that you would be held to the same standard as an attorney. You would be held to the same standard of knowledge of the law and the same standard with respect to preparation presentation, and the conduct of the case. I also told you that I could not help you. ... I urge you to be represented by an attorney.

You have the right to representation by an attorney, even if you cannot afford one. And I will appoint an attorney for you at any time during these cases, if you request one.

RP (Jan. 28, 2016) at 12-13.

At the next hearing, which took place on February 11, 2016, the court cautioned Mr. Williams again, after Mr. Williams argued that the State had no "complaining witness." It told Mr. Williams, "I would respectfully submit to you one of the dangers of representing yourself, which is that you can take a legal term of art and turn it into what may seem like a defense, when it may not in fact be a defense. I don't believe that the word 'complaining witness', at least from listening to you, has the meaning you believe it does." RP(Feb. 11, 2016) at 9.

On the Thursday before the Tuesday, February 16, 2016 trial date the State amended the information, adding a charge of second degree theft for the $1, 800 that Mr. Williams had obtained from Ms. Gillette.

In motions in limine filed by the State the Friday before trial, it sought a ruling that it could offer evidence of Mr. Williams's conviction of four similar crimes in Benton County to which he pleaded guilty the year before. It contended that the prior convictions were admissible under ER 404(b) as evidence of a common scheme or plan and of his intent to deceive the victims.

When motions in limine were argued the morning of trial, the prosecutor characterized Mr. Williams's conduct in the 2013 crimes as

basically rent[ing] out property that was foreclosed on or had been abandoned. In those cases the evidence was that he either claimed some sort of ownership interest in those other properties through a doctrine of adverse possession or he would go to a foreclosed owner, the former owner who had filed bankruptcy or been foreclosed on and would get a quitclaim deed and claim he has some sort of possessory interest in the property. . . . [H]e pled guilty, was sentenced to [I] think 17 months.

So he gets out of prison and in this case our allegation is that what he did again was rented out property that had been abandoned.

RP (Feb. 16, 2016) at 5. Given the opportunity to respond to the State's interest in offering the convictions, Mr. Williams's only objection was that "my name is Corey Javon Pugh, " and "I don't feel that the State should be able to bring in any type of this evidence because the State has not produced [sic] that I am Corey J. Williams." Id. at 6. Having heard that objection, the court said, "I'm going to allow those convictions in." Id.

After dealing with the motions in limine, the trial court asked Mr. Williams to confirm that his defense was a general denial. Mr. Williams responded that he was also asserting abandonment, saying, "I believe it applied to the residential burglary in consensus with criminal trespassing." Id. at 10.

Among the State's witnesses was Ms. Timmins, the legal owner of the North Ely residence. Ms. Timmins testified that she lived in the house from 1983 until 2013, when she moved out after her husband passed away and she could no longer afford the mortgage payments. She...