State of Washington v. Amanda Marie Torres
198 Wash. App. 864
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Torres was arrested after Yakima Central Railroad discovered vandalism at a locked yard locomotive (broken ballistic windows, shattered glass tops of air gauges, bent fence); an ID card belonging to Torres was found nearby.
- Deputy Reyna went to the Wapato residence listed on the card, encountered a young female who let him in, located Torres in a downstairs bedroom, escorted her upstairs and then placed her in his patrol car for questioning.
- Torres and Reyna gave conflicting accounts about whether Reyna read Miranda warnings, whether Torres was free to leave, and whether Reyna used force; no recording of the interview exists.
- At trial Torres was convicted of sabotaging rolling stock (RCW 81.60.080), malicious mischief (2nd degree), and burglary (2nd degree); she sought a jury instruction that locomotive windows are not part of the statute’s “operating mechanism.”
- The trial court denied that instruction, admitted Torres’ statements after a CrR 3.5 hearing (finding Reyna more credible), and the jury convicted on all counts. On appeal the court (1) declined to reach Torres’ unpreserved Fourth Amendment challenge, (2) held that windows are not "operating mechanisms" under RCW 81.60.080, reversed the sabotage conviction and remanded for retrial on that count, and (3) affirmed the mischief and burglary convictions and remanded for sentencing / restitution corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Torres' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of confession — warrantless entry/seizure (Fourth Amendment) | Reyna’s warrantless entry via a juvenile’s consent and escort/seizure of Torres required suppression | Entry and seizure were lawful (consent of occupant; no seizure); issue not preserved for appeal | Court declined to review (issue not raised below); insufficient record to show manifest constitutional error; no suppression adjudicated on appeal |
| Jury instruction — whether locomotive windows are part of the statute’s “operating mechanism” | "Operating mechanism" should mean parts that operate, propel, or brake the train; windows are not such parts | "Operating mechanism" includes parts whose damage renders legal operation impossible (e.g., federally required parts); windows can be essential | Court held windows are not operating mechanisms as a matter of law; failure to instruct was prejudicial; sabotage conviction reversed and remanded for retrial on that count |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds | Counsel was ineffective for not litigating unlawful entry/seizure suppression | Trial counsel’s conduct presumed reasonable; Torres must show prejudice | Court declined to decide deficient performance; rejected claim for lack of prejudice because outcome of suppression on these facts is unclear from record |
| Sentencing and judgment corrections (community custody condition; restitution amount) | Community custody condition should be limited to alcohol, and judgment should reflect actual restitution | State concedes correction appropriate; remand efficient | Court remanded for resentencing and correction of judgment/restitution; directed clarification of community custody condition |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (procedural default and forfeiture principles)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (consent by one with common authority binds absent co-possessor)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682 (manifest constitutional error doctrine under RAP 2.5)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (importance of record facts to appellate review of constitutional claims)