State of Washington v. Alyn James Schwinge
Opinion
FILED APRIL 16, 2019 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 36284-1-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ALYN JAMES SCHWINGE, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — Alyn J. Schwinge appeals his Klickitat County conviction for
attempting to elude a police vehicle. He contends the evidence was insufficient to
support the conviction because the State failed to prove the essential element that the
officers were in uniform at the time of the pursuit. The State concedes the error. We
reverse and dismiss the attempting to elude conviction and remand for resentencing on
the remaining conviction for second degree assault—domestic violence, with a deadly
weapon enhancement that Mr. Schwinge does not challenge on appeal. In view of recent
caselaw and Mr. Schwinge’s indigency, we also order the court to strike two costs that
were imposed as legal financial obligations (LFOs).
FACTS
Alyn Schwinge’s attempting to elude conviction originated from a September 27,
2018 incident in which he was alleged to have assaulted his ex-girlfriend, Kcarsidy Tylor, No. 36284-1-III State v. Schwinge
with a knife inside their camper trailer.1 Ms. Tyler’s mother called law enforcement and
reported the incident. Sheriff’s Deputy Edward Gunnyon was first to respond. Upon
seeing the deputy, Mr. Schwinge went to his car and sat in it. When the deputy
approached, Mr. Schwinge started the car and refused the deputy’s repeated requests to
turn off the engine and talk to him. Instead, Mr. Schwinge spun out and sped off in the
car—nearly hitting the patrol car of another deputy who had just arrived and attempted to
block him from leaving. Both deputies gave chase in their patrol vehicles until Mr.
Schwinge’s vehicle became high centered and he fled on foot. The State presented
evidence that the deputies utilized lights and sirens, but the State did not produce any
evidence that either deputy was in uniform at the time of the pursuit. The jury found Mr.
Schwinge guilty of attempting to elude.
The court imposed a 26-month sentence (including a 12-month deadly weapon
enhancement) for the assault, and a concurrent 5-month sentence for the attempting to
elude. The court also imposed LFOs including a $500 victim assessment, a $100
domestic violence assessment, a $200 criminal filing fee, and a $100 deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) collection fee. The court made no express inquiry or finding as to Mr.
Schwinge’s ability to pay LFOs, but on the day after sentencing found him indigent for
1 Mr. Schwinge was also tried on two counts of second degree assault domestic violence with a deadly weapon and was acquitted on one of those counts. The facts pertaining to the unchallenged assault count of conviction predated the September 27 incident and are unimportant to this appeal. 2 No. 36284-1-III State v. Schwinge
appeal purposes based on his declaration that he had no income in the past 12 months,
had $5000 in debt, and supported three dependent children. Mr. Schwinge timely
appealed to this court. A panel considered his appeal without hearing oral argument.
ATTEMPTING TO ELUDE CONVICTION
Mr. Schwinge contends the evidence was insufficient to support the attempting to
elude conviction because the State did not submit any proof that the deputies were in
uniform at the time of the pursuit.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, viewing the
evidence and all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to
the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the crime’s essential elements
beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992).
The requirement that the police officer be in uniform is an express element of attempting
to elude a police vehicle. RCW 46.61.024; State v. Fussell, 84 Wn. App. 126, 128, 925
P.2d 642 (1996). The State concedes there was no such proof here, and that the evidence
is therefore insufficient to support Mr. Schwinge’s conviction. We agree and accept the
State’s concession. The attempting to elude conviction is reversed and the charge
dismissed. With a reduction in his offender score, Mr. Schwinge must be resentenced for
the second degree assault conviction.
3 No. 36284-1-III State v. Schwinge
LFOs
Mr. Schwinge had received no income for 12 months at the time of sentencing and
was indigent as defined by RCW 10.101.010(3)(c) (receiving income of one hundred
twenty-five percent or less of the current federally established poverty level). He remains
indigent on appeal. He thus contends the $200 criminal filing fee and $100 domestic
violence assessment must be struck from his judgment and sentence based on State v.
Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d 714 (2018).
House Bill 1783, which became effective June 7, 2018, prohibits trial courts from
imposing discretionary LFOs on defendants who are indigent at the time of sentencing.
LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 6(3); State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d at 745-47. Among the
changes was an amendment to former RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) to prohibit the imposition of
the $200 criminal filing fee on indigent defendants. LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 17(2)(h).
As held in Ramirez, the 2018 amendments to the LFO statutes apply prospectively to
cases “pending on direct review and thus not final when the amendments were enacted.”
Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d at 747. Accordingly, the changes in law apply to Mr. Schwinge’s
case. The $200 criminal filing fee should be struck pursuant to Ramirez. Also, the $100
domestic violence assessment is a discretionary cost. RCW 10.99.080(1). As such, it
falls under the Ramirez umbrella and should be struck.
In its response brief, the State does not address the $100 domestic violence
assessment but concedes that the $100 DNA fee should be struck. We perceive this as an
4 No. 36284-1-III State v. Schwinge
inadvertent reference to the DNA fee, which Mr. Schwinge does not seek to strike. The
$100 DNA collection fee is mandatory "unless the State has previously collected the
offender's DNA as a result of a prior conviction." RCW 43.43. 7541. Mr. Schwinge's
criminal history includes one prior felony-an Oregon theft conviction. On remand, the
court should determine whether his DNA has been previously collected and either retain
or strike the fee accordingly.
Mr. Schwinge also requests that we deny the State an award of appellate costs in
the event the State substantially prevails. In light of his ongoing indigency and because
the State has not substantially prevailed on appeal, no costs will be awarded under RAP
14.2.
The conviction for attempting to elude a police vehicle is reversed and dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State of Washington v. Alyn James Schwinge (State of Washington v. Alyn James Schwinge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.