State Of Washington, V. Aeurlious E. Drayton, 85336-8

Background

Aeurlious Drayton was convicted by a jury in Washington State of attempted human trafficking in the second degree, rape of a child in the second degree, and promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor, following an incident involving a 13-year-old victim, J.M.
The factual basis included Drayton driving J.M. from Tacoma to Seattle, engaging in sexual acts with her after giving her cannabis, and then attempting to instruct and equip her for prostitution.
Physical evidence linked Drayton to the crime, including DNA analysis and items found with J.M. and in Drayton's vehicle.
The trial court sentenced Drayton on all three counts, with sentences to run concurrently, and Drayton appealed on multiple grounds.
On appeal, Drayton raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, violation of the right to present a defense, improper jury instructions, evidentiary sufficiency, double jeopardy, and imposition of a victim penalty assessment (VPA).
The appellate court affirmed the convictions but remanded to strike the VPA due to Drayton’s indigent status at sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	Counsel was ineffective for promising Drayton's testimony, which did not occur.	Counsel acted reasonably based on Drayton’s stated intent to testify; mid-trial strategy changes are permissible.	No deficiency shown; claim fails under Strickland.
Affirmative Defense Jury Instruction (Commercial Sexual Abuse)	Jury was instructed on an affirmative defense over his objection, violating autonomy.	Instruction was given with Drayton’s acquiescence, not over substantive objection.	No violation; defendant acquiesced, so right to present defense not infringed.
Affirmative Defense Jury Instruction (Rape of a Child)	Sufficient evidence supported giving a defense instruction based on victim’s inconsistent statements.	No evidence victim made a declaration regarding being older than 13; defense not supported by record.	No abuse of discretion; instruction properly refused.
Sufficiency of Evidence	Convictions unsupported due to lack of force/coercion or lack of victim restraint.	Statutes do not require force/coercion or lack of consent as elements.	Sufficient evidence supports convictions.
Double Jeopardy	Convictions for both trafficking and promoting sexual abuse violated double jeopardy.	Each crime contains elements the other does not; legally and factually distinct.	No double jeopardy violation.
Victim Penalty Assessment	Fee improper under amended law for indigent defendants.	State conceded amendment applies.	Remand to strike VPA.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (articulates the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
In re Pers. Restraint of Benn, 134 Wn.2d 868 (mid-trial strategy changes regarding testimony are not ineffective assistance if based on client shift)
State v. Coristine, 177 Wn.2d 370 (jury instruction on an affirmative defense over defendant objection infringes autonomy unless defendant acquiesces)
State v. O’Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680 (jury instruction on affirmative defense must be supported by substantial evidence)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (sets standard for review of sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Nysta, 168 Wn. App. 30 (Blockburger test applies to assess double jeopardy in multi-statute prosecutions)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (sets the standard for determining whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy)