State Of Washington v. Francisco Guzman Rodriguez
76744-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Defendant Francisco Guzman Rodriguez and victim Leonila Mejia Albino were separating but living together; Rodriguez entered her bedroom at night with a scarf, wrapped it around her neck, and later placed his hands on her neck causing unconsciousness.
- Mejia Albino escaped, locked herself in a bathroom, and later reported the attack.
- The State charged Rodriguez with attempted murder (first degree initially, but convicted of second degree) and first-degree assault; jury convicted of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree.
- At trial the court instructed on attempted murder (first and second degree) and first-degree assault; special verdicts and instructions distinguished the elements for each offense.
- Rodriguez argued on appeal that entering judgment on both convictions violated double jeopardy because the convictions were for the same offense; the State argued the crimes were distinct under the relevant tests.
- The Court of Appeals held the convictions did not violate double jeopardy because each crime was proved by different evidence and required different elements/mental states.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of judgment on both attempted murder (2d deg.) and assault (1st deg.) violates double jeopardy | State: convictions permitted if legislature intended separate punishments or the crimes are proven by different evidence | Rodriguez: convictions constitute the same offense; multiple punishments violate double jeopardy | No violation; convictions stand |
| Whether legislative intent authorizes cumulative punishments | State: distinct statutory schemes and objectives (anticipatory offenses v. assault/homicide) indicate separate punishments | Rodriguez: overlap in conduct shows single offense | Court: statutes and statutory placement imply different legislative purposes; separate punishments permissible |
| Whether Blockburger/same-evidence test is satisfied | State: each offense requires an element the other does not (intent to kill v. intent to inflict great bodily harm) | Rodriguez: underlying acts overlap so Blockburger should bar multiple convictions | Court: elements differ and mental states differ; presume not same offense |
| Whether an attempt crime merges with the completed offense under Borrero/merger doctrine | State: substantial-step element can be satisfied by facts distinct from assault; jury instructions and closing showed different factual bases | Rodriguez: attempt and assault arose from same conduct so merger/double jeopardy should apply | Court: Borrero allows distinct factual bases for attempt; here jury could have relied on nonassaultive substantial-step facts for attempt and assaultive facts for assault; no merger |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (same-evidence test for multiple punishments)
- State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765 (four-part test for legislative intent and double jeopardy analysis)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Borrero, 161 Wn.2d 532 (analysis of attempt crimes and substantial-step evidence in double jeopardy context)
- State v. Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795 (application of Blockburger where the same proof supported both convictions)
- State v. Davis, 174 Wn. App. 623 (acts establishing a substantial step toward murder)