State Of Washington, V. Cliff Alan Jones
82533-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2021Background
- In March 2017 Cliff Jones pleaded guilty to three counts of second-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree child assault as part of a global plea.
- Jones appealed; in February 2019 this court affirmed convictions but remanded to (1) reconsider a community custody condition limiting contact with his biological children and (2) strike specific LFOs (DNA fee, criminal filing fee, and interest on non-restitution LFOs).
- The mandate issued March 29, 2019; resentencing occurred June 14, 2019. Jones sought a continuance to prepare a memorandum; the trial court denied it.
- On resentencing the court modified community custody to allow supervised contact with biological children and struck the three LFOs identified in the remand; the parties had stipulated to those LFOs.
- Jones’s second appeal raises additional LFO challenges, a request to withdraw his guilty plea on parenting-rights grounds, and claims the denied continuance prejudiced his ability to present a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Jones' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court erred by not striking additional LFOs (community custody costs; collection costs) | Court should have struck these additional LFOs on remand | These issues were or could have been raised on first appeal and are now untimely; RAP 2.5(c)(1) does not revive them | Court declined review: Jones failed to raise them earlier; RAP 2.5(c)(1) inapplicable because trial court did not rule on them on remand |
| Judgment should prohibit use of Social Security income to satisfy LFOs | Judgment should expressly protect Social Security income from collection | Issue was not raised on first appeal and was not considered at resentencing | Declined review as untimely/unreviewable on direct appeal |
| Denial of continuance at resentencing prejudiced right to present a defense | Denial prevented preparation to challenge State’s resentencing memorandum relying on material he argued should have been suppressed | The suppression ruling from CrR 3.6 was not challenged on first appeal and became final; any perceived prejudice stems from that unreviewable decision | No abuse of discretion: appellant did not show prejudice from denial of continuance |
| Guilty plea involuntary because he was not informed plea could affect parenting rights | Plea should be withdrawn because he was not told it could limit his right to parent | He could have raised this claim on his first appeal (and raised related issues already); it is untimely now | Untimely: court declined to review; collateral relief (PRP) available if he wishes to pursue it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kilgore, 216 P.3d 393 (Wash. 2009) (final appellate decisions become unreviewable on direct appeal)
- State v. Gregory, 427 P.3d 621 (Wash. 2018) (RAP 2.5(c)(1) exception applies only where trial court reconsidered and ruled anew on the issue)
- State v. Mandanas, 262 P.3d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (general rule bars raising on second appeal issues that were or could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Barberio, 846 P.2d 519 (Wash. 1993) (RAP 2.5(c)(1) limitations and finality principles)
- State v. Fort, 360 P.3d 820 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate courts will not permit raising issues on remand that were not raised on first appeal)
- State v. Eller, 524 P.2d 242 (Wash. 1974) (trial court has wide discretion to grant or deny continuances; appellant must show prejudice)