State Of Washington, V. Charles Andrew Stocker, 53814-8

Charles Stocker, an Aberdeen corrections officer (2010–2016), was charged with first‑degree custodial sexual misconduct involving two victims; trial was to the court (bench trial).
At a pretrial hearing parties told the trial judge that one witness (JG) was in the judge’s drug court program; Stocker did not move to recuse the judge and defense counsel did not seek disqualification.
JG testified she met Stocker in 2010 and alleged multiple incidents of coerced sexual acts while booked in jail between ~2010 and 2016.
The trial court dismissed charges as to the other victim (AS) but convicted Stocker of first‑degree custodial sexual misconduct regarding JG and sentenced him to nine months.
On appeal Stocker raised three claims: (1) judge should have recused for prior contact via drug court; (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the judge; (3) conviction time‑barred because applicable statute of limitations was three years.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: recusal issue unpreserved; no ineffective assistance shown on the record; applicable statute of limitations was ten years under former RCW 9A.04.080(1)(b)(i), so charges were timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial recusal	Judge should have recused because witness was in judge’s drug court program	No recusal required; judge said he would decide based on law and evidence	Not preserved for appeal—no motion below; court declined to review
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel ineffective for failing to move to recuse/disqualify judge	Counsel reasonably relied on judge’s statement and tactical choice; no record evidence of bias	No deficient performance shown on the record; claim fails
Statute of limitations	Three‑year statute applies so some alleged acts are time‑barred	Ten‑year statute applies because Stocker was a public officer who breached his oath while performing duties	Ten‑year statute under former RCW 9A.04.080(1)(b)(i) applies; charges timely

Estes v. State, 188 Wn.2d 450 (defines ineffective assistance standard and prejudice test)
Linville v. State, 191 Wn.2d 513 (appellate review of ineffective assistance claims constrained to trial record)
McFarland v. State, 127 Wn.2d 322 (limits on considering matters outside trial record on direct appeal)
Grier v. State, 171 Wn.2d 17 (presumption of reasonable counsel; defendant’s burden to rebut)
Reichenbach v. State, 153 Wn.2d 126 (discusses tactical decisions and counsel performance presumption)
Adams v. State, 91 Wn.2d 86 (bench‑trial judges presumed to follow law and consider evidence properly)
Miles v. State, 77 Wn.2d 593 (presumption that judge follows proper standards in bench trials)
Bell v. State, 59 Wn.2d 338 (same presumption regarding judicial impartiality in bench trials)
Cook v. State, 125 Wn. App. 709 (ten‑year limitations period applied to crimes by public officers in connection with duties)