State of Washington v. Francisco Javier Gutierrez-Valdovinos, 34397-9

Defendant Francisco Gutierrez-Valdovinos was charged with first-degree theft for cashing a $6,000 check allegedly from Alta Lake Golf Course; he was released on recognizance after a probable cause hearing.
Arraigned May 4, 2015; trial originally set and later continued several times (including continuances dated Dec. 1, 2015 and Feb. 10, 2016); defendant signed orders acknowledging receipt and a 10-day objection waiver but did not object.
Trial commenced April 5, 2016; Deputy Ron Oules testified about the investigation and defendant’s statements, describing the defendant as evasive and recounting that the defendant said he thought the check came from working at the golf course.
Defense argued at trial that defendant believed the check was a legitimate payment; defense called no witnesses.
Jury convicted defendant of first-degree theft and he was sentenced; on appeal he argued (1) speedy-trial violations under CrR 3.3 for specified continuances, (2) improper opinion testimony by the deputy, and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gutierrez‑Valdovinos)	Held
Were the Dec. 1, 2015 and Feb. 10, 2016 continuances a CrR 3.3 speedy-trial violation?	Continuances were proper; defendant waived objection by signing orders and failing to move within 10 days.	Trial court failed to state adequate reasons and failed to make required CrR 3.3 findings for continuances.	Waiver: defendant signed orders with 10-day objection notice and did not object; speedy-trial claim dismissed.
Was Deputy Oules’s testimony improper opinion testimony about defendant’s credibility?	Testimony described defendant’s responses and evasiveness as factual and permissible.	Deputy’s descriptions amounted to improper credibility opinion (relying on State v. Jones).	Testimony was factual description and inference-based, not an impermissible credibility opinion; not improper.
Did counsel render ineffective assistance by not objecting to the deputy’s testimony?	No deficient performance because testimony was proper; thus no prejudice.	Failure to object was ineffective assistance that prejudiced the defense.	Ineffective-assistance claim fails because there was no deficiency to object to and no prejudice shown.
Should appellate costs be waived?	Defer to commissioner; trial court found defendant indigent for appeal.	Defendant requests no appellate costs if he does not prevail.	Matter deferred to commissioner per RAP 14.2; prior indigency finding continues unless substantial change shown.

State v. Kenyon, 167 Wn.2d 130 (Wa. 2009) (standard of review for CrR 3.3 speedy-trial issues)
State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273 (Wa. 2009) (constitutional speedy-trial analysis)
State v. Jones, 117 Wn. App. 89 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (discusses limits on officer testimony about defendant credibility)
City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App. 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (permissible officer testimony that is factual and inferential, not direct credibility opinion)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856 (Wa. 2009) (ineffective-assistance claims may be raised on appeal)
State v. Humphries, 181 Wn.2d 708 (Wa. 2014) (defendant’s burden on Strickland performance and prejudice)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (Wa. 1995) (ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61 (Wa. 1996) (either prong failure ends inquiry)