State Of Washington v. James Wright, Jr., 49106-1

Background

On Feb. 7, 2016, JAMES OTIS WRIGHT, JR. allegedly entered a church where volunteer T.S. was alone, said “I’m here to eat your pussy,” then pushed into her, placed his knee between her legs, pulled her in and grabbed her crotch; she screamed, told him to stop, and ejected him. Police arrested Wright nearby; he denied touching T.S.
Prosecutors charged Wright with indecent liberties by forcible compulsion (RCW 9A.44.100). Trial was originally set within CrR 3.3 time limits but was continued several times; Wright remained in custody pretrial.
At trial T.S. testified to the sexual comment, the grabbing, and that she did not consent; officers corroborated her shaken state. Defense emphasized that the facts did not satisfy elements of the specific crime charged.
The jury convicted Wright. On appeal he raised (1) a CrR 3.3 time-for-trial violation, (2) insufficiency of evidence for sexual contact and forcible compulsion, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) several instructional and prosecutorial-misconduct claims in a SAG.
The Court of Appeals reviewed CrR 3.3 issues de novo/abuse of discretion as appropriate, assessed sufficiency of the evidence under the Jackson standard, and applied Strickland/McFarland principles to ineffective-assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wright)	Held
Time-for-trial (CrR 3.3)	Continuances were proper and excluded from the CrR 3.3 computation; some continuances were joint or court-ordered and thus extended the last trial date.	Trial was held after the original last day for trial; defense counsel failed to preserve/consent properly so CrR 3.3 was violated.	No violation: April continuances were proper (party motion/court order), exclusions applied, Wright joined/failed to timely object and thus may not raise the claim.
Sufficiency — sexual contact	Evidence (comment + grabbing crotch + victim’s confirmation) established touching of intimate parts for sexual gratification.	No evidence T.S. caused contact or that touching met statutory sexual-contact definition.	Guilty: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational jury could find sexual contact occurred and sexual gratification could be inferred.
Sufficiency — forcible compulsion	Wright used force beyond mere touching (pushed her, knee between legs, pulled her in), overcoming resistance.	The touching was sudden/brief (relying on Ritola) and insufficient to show force overcoming resistance.	Guilty: the additional pushing/pinning/pulling supported forcible compulsion; unlike Ritola, force here went beyond the contact itself.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel made tactical choices (joined continuance, declined opening, focused on element dispute, opted for jury resolution rather than Knapstad motion); no deficient performance or prejudice shown.	Counsel permitted time-for-trial violation, failed to file a Knapstad motion, and performed other assorted tactical errors.	Claim fails: Wright did not show deficient performance or prejudice; Knapstad would have likely failed and might have been strategically undesirable.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hawkins, 181 Wn.2d 170 (legal standard for CrR 3.3 review)
State v. Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d 813 (continuance abuse-of-discretion standard and speedy-trial context)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Rich, 184 Wn.2d 897 (sufficiency review standard)
State v. Ritola, 63 Wn. App. 252 (distinguishing forcible compulsion where touching was instantaneous)
State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 (procedure for court dismissal when undisputed facts cannot establish prima facie case)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (Strickland/McFarland test for ineffective assistance)