State Of Washington v. Chad E. Christensen, 49764-6

Background

In 2012 Chad Ernest Christensen was convicted by a jury of first-degree child molestation; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2015 Christensen filed a CrR 7.8(b)(5) motion seeking relief from judgment, alleging a public-trial violation and ineffective assistance for failure to object to a courtroom closure during voir dire.
Christensen’s father, Chip, submitted a sworn declaration stating he was asked to leave his seat for prospective jurors and was excluded from the courtroom during jury selection until after lunch.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found Chip was asked only to give up his seat (not to leave the courtroom) and that the courtroom doors could not have been locked without someone manually locking them from outside.
The trial court denied the CrR 7.8 motion, concluding Christensen failed to prove a courtroom closure and that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object.
On appeal, court-appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Anders/Theobald; the Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and dismissed the appeal as frivolous.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a public-trial violation occurred when Christensen’s father was asked to give up his seat during voir dire	Christensen: father was excluded during jury selection, constituting a courtroom closure	State: father was asked to change seats but was not excluded from the courtroom; no closure occurred	No public-trial violation; trial court’s finding that no closure occurred is supported by substantial evidence
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the alleged courtroom closure	Christensen: counsel should have objected to and preserved the public-trial claim	State: no closure occurred, so counsel had no deficient performance to cure	Counsel not ineffective because no closure occurred and thus no deficient performance or prejudice shown
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a public-trial claim on direct appeal	Christensen (argued in potential): appellate counsel failed to raise public-trial issue	State: record contained no indication of a public-trial violation; appellate counsel not deficient	No good-faith basis to claim ineffective appellate assistance; issue not raised below and record did not support it
Whether counsel-appointed to appeal may withdraw under Anders/Theobald and RAP 15.2(i)	Counsel: no nonfrivolous issues exist; moves to withdraw with supporting brief	Court/State: independent review required to confirm frivolousness	Court grants withdrawal and dismisses appeal after independent review

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel withdrawal when no meritorious issues exist)
Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184 (1970) (state procedure complementing Anders for appointed counsel withdrawal)
Hairston v. State, 133 Wn.2d 534 (1997) (requirements for Anders/Theobald withdrawal procedure)
Love v. State, 183 Wn.2d 598 (2015) (burden to prove a courtroom closure for public-trial claim)
Gomez v. State, 183 Wn.2d 29 (2015) (definition and framework for courtroom closure analysis)
Lormor v. State, 172 Wn.2d 85 (2011) (public trial and courtroom exclusion principles)
Anderson, 187 Wn. App. 706 (2015) (closure occurs when public is excluded from particular proceedings)
Reichenbach v. State, 153 Wn.2d 126 (2004) (ineffective-assistance standard—deficiency and prejudice)
Schwab, 141 Wn. App. 85 (2007) (standard of review for CrR 7.8 findings and conclusions)
Scott, 150 Wn. App. 281 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for CrR 7.8 denials)