State Of Washington v. Arianna Eisele-chavez, 49616-0

In June 2014 Arianna Eisele‑Chavez poured bleach into her boyfriend’s pickup; charged with second‑degree malicious mischief (a felony).
In Sept. 2014 she entered a diversion agreement: waive trial, complete diversion for dismissal, but if diversion failed the court could find her guilty based on investigative reports and stipulated facts sufficient for conviction.
The diversion form initially misidentified the charge as a gross misdemeanor; the error was corrected to a felony and Eisele‑Chavez initialed the amendment; the court and counsel confirmed it was a felony.
In Nov. 2015 the court found diversion failed and entered a conviction on stipulated facts; she received community service and LFOs; she did not appeal.
In Sept. 2016 Eisele‑Chavez moved under CrR 7.8(b) to vacate, arguing ineffective assistance because counsel did not tell her a felony conviction could cause loss of subsidized housing; the trial court denied relief.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding she failed to show deficient performance or prejudice necessary for an ineffective‑assistance claim and offered no evidence that housing loss was a direct, automatic consequence of the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CrR 7.8(b) relief should be granted for ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to advise that a felony conviction could jeopardize subsidized housing	Eisele‑Chavez: counsel was ineffective for not advising that a felony conviction could cause loss of housing, and she would have acted differently	State: counsel’s performance was not deficient; loss of housing is at best a collateral consequence and plaintiff offered no evidence it is an automatic direct consequence or that she was prejudiced	Court: denied relief — no deficient performance shown and no prejudice; housing loss not shown to be a direct consequence
Whether the court erred by not informing her she was stipulating to a felony rather than misdemeanor	Eisele‑Chavez: she was not informed she was stipulating to a felony	State: record shows court, counsel, and defendant knew it was a felony	Court: claim not raised below and thus not considered on appeal; record in any event shows all parties knew it was a felony

State v. Robinson, 193 Wn. App. 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for CrR 7.8(b) denial is abuse of discretion)
State v. Schwab, 141 Wn. App. 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (scope of review limited to evidence presented at CrR 7.8 hearing)
State v. Gaut, 111 Wn. App. 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (appeal of CrR 7.8(b) denial does not permit collateral attack on unappealed judgment)
State v. Lamb, 175 Wn.2d 121 (Wash. 2012) (CrR 7.8(b)(5) relief for other reasons where interests of justice require)
State v. Shove, 113 Wn.2d 83 (Wash. 1989) (framework for relief under CrR 7.8)
State v. Martinez, 161 Wn. App. 436 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (ineffective assistance may justify CrR 7.8(b)(5) relief)
State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450 (Wash. 2017) (ineffective assistance claim: deficient performance and prejudice standard; review de novo)
State v. Ward, 123 Wn.2d 488 (Wash. 1994) (distinguishing direct and collateral consequences of a plea)
State v. Barton, 93 Wn.2d 301 (Wash. 1980) (test for direct vs. collateral consequences)