State of Washington v. Paula Laney

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: December 3, 2024
• Docket: 39809-9
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED DECEMBER 3, 2024 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

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 39809-9-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) PAULA LANEY, ) ) Appellant. )

LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Paula Laney appeals her conviction for third degree

assault. She argues her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the legality

of the traffic stop that occurred before she assaulted the officer who stopped her. We

decline to consider her argument because the record is insufficient to adjudicate her

claim.

FACTS1

Officer Kayla Nuxoll located and stopped a car that dispatch informed her was

being driven erratically. The driver, Paula Laney, had herself called dispatch to report an

1 The facts are taken from the evidence presented at trial. No. 39809-9-III State v. Laney

erratic driver. Dispatch had informed Officer Nuxoll that Laney sounded intoxicated on

the call.

Once stopped, Laney was confused and uncooperative. She deflected Officer

Nuxoll’s questions about her own driving by insisting that she was the concerned party

who had reported another party’s erratic driving. When Officer Nuxoll requested

registration and proof of insurance, Laney refused on the basis that the car belonged to

her neighbor, who had recently died. Laney insisted that she had only driven the car that

night in order to visit Taco Time. After smelling the odor of burning brakes, Officer

Nuxoll noticed that Laney had been driving with her emergency brake engaged. When

Officer Nuxoll asked Laney to get out of the car, she refused and claimed she was

disabled. When asked how much she had had to drink, Laney sardonically replied,

“A keg.” Report of Proceedings at 139. She then refused to submit to field sobriety tests.

Officer Nuxoll told Laney she was under arrest for suspicion of driving under the

influence of alcohol. Even after learning she was under arrest, Laney repeatedly refused

to get out of the car. Officer Nuxoll told Laney that if she did not get out of the car that

she would be forcibly removed. Eventually, Officer Nuxoll tried to remove Laney from

the car, at which point Laney hit the officer in the face with a closed fist. Officer Nuxoll

and other officers completed the arrest.

2 No. 39809-9-III State v. Laney

The State charged Laney with assault in the third degree. At trial, Officer Nuxoll

testified consistent with the facts above, and the State showed the jury Officer Nuxoll’s

bodycam footage of the encounter. Because the State did not charge Laney with driving

under the influence, it did not ask Officer Nuxoll about Laney’s driving.

The jury convicted Laney, and she timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

Laney argues she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her trial

counsel failed to challenge the legality of the traffic stop. For the reasons explained, we

decline to address her argument.

To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish two

elements: (1) defense counsel’s representation was deficient, and (2) defense counsel’s

deficient representation prejudiced the defendant. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322,

334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). Focusing on the second element, the record is insufficient

for us to determine whether Laney was prejudiced by her trial counsel’s failure to

challenge the legality of the traffic stop.

At trial, the reasons supporting the stop were not relevant to the charged offense,

and the State had no reason to, and did not, ask the arresting officer for every reason why

she stopped Laney. Without knowing all of the reasons for the stop, we cannot determine

whether Laney was prejudiced by her trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance.

3 No. 39809-9-III State v. Laney

Therefore, we decline to consider the issue. See id. at 333 (refusing to consider

defendant’s unpreserved challenge to warrantless arrest because necessary facts were not

in record to adjudicate claim).2

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REVIEW

Laney argues her conviction was improper because (1) her trial counsel failed to

notify her of trial, (2) the jury pool saw her enter the courthouse prior to trial, (3) the jury

was biased, and (4) she could not comply with Officer Nuxoll’s request to get out of the

car because of a disability.

We reject Laney’s first argument because she was present at trial, so any failure by

her attorney to notify her of trial caused no prejudice. We decline to consider her other

arguments because the record is inadequate for us to adjudicate those claims. If Laney

wants a reviewing court to consider matters outside the record, a timely personal restraint

petition should be filed. Id. at 338.

2 Even had trial counsel successfully challenged the traffic stop, a separate question arises whether evidence of the assault would have been suppressed. See State v. Mayfield, 192 Wn.2d 871, 874, 434 P.3d 58 (2019) (evidence obtained after unconstitutional police conduct will not be suppressed if the connection between the unconstitutional conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance).

4 No. 39809-9-111 State v. Laney

In this instance, we affirm.

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

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

c.b. ,.V,.,C.,..... Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. C!:,..._ ... 1 , c~. ~

WE CONCUR:

Pennell, J. Cooney, J.