State Of Washington v. Danielle E. Wentland, 75023-2

Danielle Wentland signed an Adult Drug Treatment Court (ADTC) agreement to enter the program instead of contesting a possession of a controlled substance charge.
The agreement required forfeiture of certain rights and provided that failure in the program could lead to conviction on stipulated evidence.
Wentland entered the ADTC program, failed and was terminated, and was then convicted at a bench trial on the stipulated evidence per the agreement.
On appeal, Wentland argued for the first time that she was intoxicated when she signed the ADTC agreement and therefore did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive her rights.
She did not raise intoxication or incapacity to the trial court despite opportunities at the acceptance hearing and during weekly meetings.
The Court of Appeals considered whether the unpreserved claim could be reviewed as a manifest constitutional error and examined the record for evidence of intoxication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wentland knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived rights when signing the ADTC agreement	Wentland: she was intoxicated at signing, so the waiver was invalid	State: Wentland did not preserve the claim and the record lacks evidence of intoxication	Court: Claim not preserved; no manifest constitutional error shown because record does not demonstrate intoxication
Whether appellate review is permissible despite failure to raise the issue below	Wentland: seeks review as constitutional error affecting rights	State: normal waiver/principle of preservation applies; no manifest error	Court: May review only if a manifest constitutional error; Wentland failed to show actual prejudice or intoxication

State v. Bertrand, 165 Wn. App. 393 (discussing preservation of issues for appeal)
State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682 (preservation rule authority)
State v. Gordon, 172 Wn.2d 671 (manifest error exception to preservation)
State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918 (requiring showing of actual prejudice for manifest error review)
State v. Walters, 162 Wn. App. 74 (reviewing record for manifestations of intoxication)
State v. DeClue, 157 Wn. App. 787 (same)
State v. Harris, 122 Wn. App. 547 (same)
State v. Gardner, 28 Wn. App. 721 (totality of circumstances in waiver analysis)
State v. Cuzzetto, 76 Wn.2d 378 (same)