State Of Washington, V Jaylin Jerome Irish

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedMarch 31, 2015
Docket45509-9
StatusUnpublished

This text of State Of Washington, V Jaylin Jerome Irish (State Of Washington, V Jaylin Jerome Irish) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Of Washington, V Jaylin Jerome Irish, (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

FILED COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II 2015 MAR 31 AM 8: 36 STA' AS t

GTON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGT

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45509 -9 -II

Respondent,

v.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION JAYLIN JEROME IRISH,

Appellant.

SUTTON, J. — Jaylin Jerome Irish appeals his convictions following guilty pleas for first

degree assault and first degree rendering criminal assistance. Irish argues that ( 1) the information

failed to include all the essential elements of first degree rendering criminal assistance and ( 2) the

trial court violated his right to counsel when it denied his trial counsel' s motion to withdraw.'

Holding that the information contained all the essential elements of first degree rendering criminal assistance but that the trial court violated Irish' s right to counsel, we vacate Irish' s sentence,

remand to allow him to move to withdraw his guilty plea, and order the trial court to appoint Irish

new counsel.

1 Irish also argues that he pled guilty involuntarily. Because we vacate Irish' s sentence and order the trial court to appoint Irish new counsel, giving him the opportunity to move to withdraw the plea, we do not consider this argument. No. 45509 -9 -II

FACTS

I. THE STATE' S CHARGING DOCUMENT AND IRISH' S GUILTY PLEAS

The State charged Irish with three counts of first degree assault and one count of drive -by

shooting, all while acting as an accomplice. The State later amended its information to add one

count of first degree rendering criminal assistance. In his statement of defendant on plea of guilty,

Irish explained why he was guilty of these charges:

On March 24, 2012, in the City of Tacoma, I drove my car, a white Honda Accord with license plate 368XKL to the area of South 45th Street bordered by South Lawrence Street and South Alder Street[.] I went there because I heard there was going to be a fight in that location. When I arrived I saw several people fighting. I then saw one person pull out a gun and fire one shot towards some of the people he had been fighting with. The shooter got into my car and I drove him north on South Alder Street to get him away from the scene so he could avoid apprehension by law enforcement. As we reached the intersection of South Alder Street and South 43rd Street, the shooter told me to stop and let him out of the car so that he could fire another round at the people he had previously shot at. I agreed and let him out. When I drove off I heard a gunshot.

Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 22.

On the day that trial was to begin, the State and Irish reached a plea agreement that reduced

Irish' s charges to one count of first degree assault and one count of first degree rendering criminal

assistance. Both the amended information and the guilty plea statement included the same

language for first degree rendering criminal assistance: Irish " did unlawfully and feloniously

render criminal assistance to [ another], a person who committed or was being sought for First

Degree Assault, a Class A felony, by providing such person with ... means of avoiding discovery

or apprehension." CP at 12 -13.

At the hearing to enter Irish' s guilty plea, Irish' s trial counsel, Zenon Olbertz, told the trial

court that he and Irish discussed the guilty plea, which had been reached after " protracted

2 No. 45509 -9 -II

discussions and negotiations [ with the State]." Verbatim Report of Proceedings ( VRP) at 71.

During his colloquy with the trial court, Irish answered in the affirmative that he understood the elements of first degree assault and first degree rendering criminal assistance. The trial court

accepted Irish' s guilty plea and found that Irish made it knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

II. SENTENCING: TRIAL COURT FINDS No CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Olbertz opened Irish' s sentencing hearing by asking the trial court to appoint Irish new

counsel. Olbertz explained that shortly after the entry of Irish' s guilty plea, Irish expressed desire

to withdraw it because "[ Irish] had been pressured into entering the plea." VRP at 84. Irish' s

request prompted Olbertz to ask the Department of Assigned Counsel ( DAC) to assign new

counsel for Irish because Olbertz felt he had become a witness to Irish' s allegation of pressure.

Olbertz understood that DAC had appointed a new attorney but he was unaware whether a notice

of substitution had been filed by the time of the sentencing hearing. Olbertz told the trial court

that he thought he had a conflict of interest because he would be a witness at any potential hearing

or proceeding on Irish' s motion to withdraw the plea. The trial court denied Olbertz' s request

because it did not have anything " firm" to make a conflict finding that would prevent proceeding

with sentencing. VRP at 85. The trial court then sentenced Irish. Irish appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. INFORMATION CONTAINED ALL ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS. OF FIRST DEGREE RENDERING CRIMINAL ASSISTANCE

For the first time on appeal, Irish argues that the State' s information failed to give him

notice of all the essential elements of first degree rendering criminal assistance. We disagree.

3 No. 45509 -9 -II

Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 22 of

the Washington State Constitution, the State' s information must contain all the essential elements

of each charged crime and allege facts supporting those elements so that the accused may prepare

a defense. State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 -59, 307 P. 3d 712 ( 2013); State v. Lindsey, 177

Wn. App. 233, 245, 311 P. 3d 61 ( 2013), review denied, 180 Wn.2d 1022 ( 2014). An " essential

element" is an element that is necessary to establish the illegality of the behavior charged by the

State. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d at 158.

2 We review challenges to the sufficiency of a charging document de novo. Lindsey, 177

Wn. App. at 244. But, when reviewing such a challenge for the first time on appeal, we will

liberally construe the information in favor of its validity. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d at 161. We will

Kjorsvik3 uphold a charging document if it satisfies the two -prong test: "( 1) [ D] o the necessary

elements appear in any form, or by fair construction, on the face of the document and, if so, ( 2)

can the defendant show he or she was actually prejudiced by the unartful language." Zillyette, 178

Wn.2d at 162. The State' s information contains all the necessary elements and Irish cannot

demonstrate actual prejudice.

A. Necessary Elements of First Degree Rendering Criminal Assistance

Irish argues that the State' s information was insufficient because it alleged that he acted

unlawfully and feloniously," which is insufficient to allege knowledge as required to prove first

degree rendering criminal assistance. CP at 12. We disagree.

2 A guilty plea does not waive the defendant' s right to appeal the sufficiency of the State' s charging document. State v. Peltier, 181 Wn.2d 290, 294 -95, 332 P. 3d 457 ( 2014).

3 State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105 -106, 812 P. 2d 86 ( 1991).

4 No. 45509 -9 -II

A person renders criminal assistance if,

with intent to prevent, hinder, or delay the apprehension or prosecution of another person who he or she knows has committed a crime ...

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Holloway v. Arkansas
435 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1978)
State v. Nieblas-Duarte
777 P.2d 583 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1989)
State v. Anderson
818 P.2d 40 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1991)
State v. Kjorsvik
812 P.2d 86 (Washington Supreme Court, 1991)
State v. Snapp
82 P.3d 252 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2004)
State v. Regan
177 P.3d 783 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2008)
State v. Fualaau
228 P.3d 771 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2010)
State v. Krajeski
16 P.3d 69 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2001)
In re the Personal Restraint of Gomez
180 Wash. 2d 337 (Washington Supreme Court, 2014)
State v. Dhaliwal
79 P.3d 432 (Washington Supreme Court, 2003)
State v. Robinson
107 P.3d 90 (Washington Supreme Court, 2005)
State v. Zillyette
307 P.3d 712 (Washington Supreme Court, 2013)
State v. Peltier
332 P.3d 457 (Washington Supreme Court, 2014)
State v. Krajeski
104 Wash. App. 377 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2001)
State v. Regan
143 Wash. App. 419 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2008)
State v. Fualaau
155 Wash. App. 347 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2010)
State v. Pierce
280 P.3d 1158 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2012)
State v. Lindsey
311 P.3d 61 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State Of Washington, V Jaylin Jerome Irish, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-washington-v-jaylin-jerome-irish-washctapp-2015.