State Of Washington v. David Ramirez, 48705-5

Background

Ramirez attended a party, drank an offered beer, began hallucinating, and went to the ER where he told staff he had done drugs and was seeing things.
In the ER Ramirez grabbed nurse Wilkinson’s breast, was moved to a psychiatric room, made sexually explicit and belittling comments about nurses, and appeared to masturbate under a blanket; staff and police observed his agitation and later found methamphetamine and paraphernalia on him.
Ramirez testified he was delusional and that he did not voluntarily take drugs (claimed he was slipped a substance); he also denied knowledge of possessing the drugs found.
Jury convicted Ramirez of third-degree assault (with sexual motivation) and possession of a controlled substance; by special verdict the jury found Ramirez displayed an egregious lack of remorse.
At sentencing the court imposed discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs); Ramirez did not object below and appealed raising (1) ineffective assistance for not requesting an involuntary intoxication instruction, (2) insufficiency of evidence for the egregious lack of remorse finding, (3) inadequate Blazina inquiry on LFOs, and (4) additional grounds (SAG) about jury composition and credibility of his intoxication claim.

Issues

Issue	Ramirez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an involuntary intoxication instruction	Counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudiced Ramirez because the jury had no instruction to acquit if intoxication was involuntary	Reasonable trial strategy to pursue voluntary-intoxication defense to negate intent; presenting both could confuse jury; evidence supported voluntary-intoxication instruction	Not ineffective; counsel’s strategy reasonable and no deficient performance shown
Sufficiency of evidence for special verdict of egregious lack of remorse	Jury lacked sufficient evidence to find egregious lack of remorse	Ramirez’s sexual comments, masturbation, and statements minimizing harm justified the finding	Sufficient evidence supported the special verdict beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether the sentencing court failed to adequately inquire into ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs (Blazina)	Trial court did not meaningfully inquiry into finances, debts, or future ability to pay; GR 34 indigency finding should counsel against LFOs	Court conducted individualized inquiry (employment, bills, bank account) and did not abuse discretion imposing LFOs; Ramirez did not object below	Majority: inquiry was adequate and LFOs proper; Dissent: would review de novo and would reverse/remand for inadequate Blazina inquiry
SAG claims: jury composition and failure to present the “right story”	Absence of a Hispanic juror violated right to jury of peers; jury didn’t get adequate proof of involuntary intoxication	No evidence of purposeful exclusion; Ramirez testified and could present his intoxication theory to jury; jury assessed credibility	SAG claims rejected; no proof of discriminatory exclusion and no preserved error on jury selection

Key Cases Cited

State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (counsel performance reviewed under Strickland; presumption of reasonableness)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (trial court must make individualized Blazina inquiry into ability to pay LFOs)
State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (jury presumed to follow instructions)