State of Washington v. Martina M. Maina

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 59792-6
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

February 3, 2026

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59792-6-II

Respondent,

v.

MARTINA MARIE MAINA, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant.

MAXA, P.J. – Martina Maina appeals her convictions of attempted second degree robbery

and felony harassment. She argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because

defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s statement during rebuttal closing argument

that Maina’s identity as the perpetrator was not an issue in the case.

We hold that the prosecutor’s argument was not improper, so Maina does not establish

ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to object. Accordingly, we affirm Maina’s

convictions.

FACTS

In September 2023, Pedro Martinez was leaving a parking lot in his car when a woman

approached him and asked for a ride. When Martinez said that he did not give rides, the woman

reached through his window, grabbed his seatbelt, and told Martinez to give her his car keys. No. 59792-6-II

She said she would shoot him if he refused. Martinez then agreed to give her a ride. The woman

turned away to collect some bags and told Martinez that she would shoot him if he left.

While the woman was collecting her bags, Martinez drove out into the road and called the

police. The State charged Maina with attempted second degree robbery and felony harassment –

bodily injury. Maina was 55 years old at the time of the incident.

At trial, Martinez was not sure if his assailant was present in the courtroom because the

person who accosted him “didn’t look very clean.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 58. Martinez testified

that the woman was in her 50s with messy gray hair and wore a green jacket. He also testified

that, after he pulled into the center lane of the road to call police, he stayed there for several

minutes. During that time, Martinez watched the woman walk across the street and saw police

arrive and apprehend her. A police officer then testified, identifying Maina as the woman

arrested in connection with this incident.

During closing argument, defense counsel argued that because all Martinez could

remember was “messy hair and a green jacket,” there was “clearly not a positive [identification]”

of Maina as the perpetrator. RP at 99. In rebuttal, the prosecutor acknowledged that Martinez

had difficulty identifying Maina, but pointed out that Martinez’s description of Maina’s hair

color and approximate age was accurate. The prosecutor then continued:

I think the most important part of his testimony is when he said I -- I kept an eye on her the whole time until law enforcement apprehended her. And then the law enforcement officer got on the stand afterwards and said yeah, that’s the person I apprehended on that date. We’ve identified her. That’s not an issue in this case.

RP at 101.

The jury convicted Maina of both charges. Maina appeals her convictions.

2 No. 59792-6-II

ANALYSIS

A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the

Washington Constitution guarantee criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of

counsel. State v. Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d 116, 128, 546 P.3d 1020 (2024). A defendant asserting that

they received ineffective assistance of counsel must show both that counsel’s representation was

deficient and that the deficient representation prejudiced the defendant. Id.

Defense counsel’s representation is deficient if after considering all the circumstances,

the performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness. State v. Vasquez, 198

Wn.2d 239, 247-48, 494 P.3d 424 (2021). Prejudice exists if there is a reasonable probability

that the result of the trial would have been different but for defense counsel’s deficient

performance. Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d at 129.

Whether and when to object typically is a strategic or tactical decision. Vasquez, 198

Wn.2d at 248. And a legitimate trial strategy is to forgo an objection when defense counsel

wishes to avoid highlighting certain evidence. Id. In addition, to establish deficient performance

based on a failure to object, a defendant must show that the trial court would have sustained the

objection. Id.

In this case, Maina asserts that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing

to object to the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument, which she alleges misstated the State’s burden of

proof. “Arguments by the prosecution that shift or misstate the State’s burden to prove the

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt constitute misconduct.” State v. Lindsay, 180

Wn.2d 423, 434, 326 P.3d 125 (2014). However, the prosecutor is given wide latitude to assert

reasonable inferences from the evidence. State v. Slater, 197 Wn.2d 660, 680, 486 P.3d 873

3 No. 59792-6-II

(2021). And “it is not misconduct for the prosecutor to argue that evidence does not support the

defense theory or to fairly respond to defense counsel’s argument.” State v. Thorgerson, 172

Wn.2d 438, 449, 258 P.3d 43 (2011).

B. ANALYSIS

Maina argues that the prosecutor’s statement that the identity of the perpetrator was “not

an issue in this case,” RP at 101, trivialized the State’s burden of proving that Maina committed

the charged offenses. She claims that defense counsel performed deficiently by failing to object.

We disagree.

Here, although Martinez could not identify Maina in the courtroom, he described the

perpetrator as a woman with messy gray hair in her 50s who wore a distinctive clothing item: a

green jacket. He also testified that he watched the woman who threatened him for several

minutes after the incident and saw police arrest the same woman. And an officer identified

Maina as the person arrested in connection with the incident.

Based on Martinez’s hesitance to identify Maina as the perpetrator, defense counsel

argued that there was no “positive” identification in this case. RP at 99. In response, the

prosecutor recited the above evidence supporting Maina’s identification, emphasizing the fact

that Martinez watched her until police contacted her and that an officer identified her as the

person arrested. The prosecutor then stated, “We’ve identified her. That’s not an issue in this

case.” RP at 101.

Under the circumstances, the prosecutor’s argument was a fair response to defense

counsel’s argument, and it drew a reasonable inference from the evidence supporting Maina’s

identification. In addition, because objecting to the prosecutor’s argument would have further

4 No. 59792-6-II

emphasized the evidence supporting positive identification, it was a legitimate tactic for defense

counsel to forego objecting. See Vasquez, 198 Wn.2d at 248.

Because the prosecutor’s argument was not improper, Maina cannot show that the

objection was likely to be sustained. Therefore, Maina fails to establish that defense counsel’s

performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Accordingly, we hold that her

ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.

CONCLUSION

We affirm Maina’s convictions.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

MAXA, P.J.

We concur:

LEE, J.

CHE,J.