State Of Washington, V John Michael Bale
48042-5
Wash. Ct. App.Feb 22, 2017Background
- John M. Bale was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree assault (each with a 60‑month firearm enhancement) and one count of possession of a stolen firearm; the possession conviction was later reversed for insufficient evidence on direct appeal.
- After remand for resentencing, the trial court imposed standard‑range consecutive sentences for the two serious violent offenses, totaling 490 months, and denied Bale’s request for an exceptional downward sentence.
- Bale filed a consolidated direct appeal and a personal restraint petition (PRP) raising sentencing, ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary, and procedural claims.
- The Court of Appeals rejected Bale’s claim that the court mistakenly thought it lacked authority to impose an exceptional concurrent sentence, finding the court properly denied downward departure for lack of mitigating circumstances.
- The court denied Bale’s ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct claims, and refused to relitigate issues already decided on his prior appeal or issues unsupported by the record.
- The court affirmed the sentence, denied the PRP, and waived appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose an exceptional downward concurrent sentence | Bale: court mistakenly believed it lacked authority to impose exceptional concurrent sentence for multiple serious violent offenses | State: SRA requires consecutive sentences for multiple serious violent offenses absent statutory mitigating factors | Court: No abuse of discretion — court knew authority but found no mitigating circumstances, so standard consecutive sentences appropriate |
| Ineffective assistance at resentencing (failure to cite case law / request exceptional sentence) | Bale: counsel deficient for not citing authority and requesting exceptional downward sentence; prejudice presumed | State: counsel advocated low‑end standard range; record shows court would not have granted downward departure absent mitigating facts | Court: No deficient prejudice — court rejected low‑end request and found no mitigating factors; claim fails |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (various trial‑stage complaints including closing argument) | Bale: prosecutor improperly limited speaking objections, asked leading or improper questions, misstated intent, argued intent equates to ‘‘scaring’’ officers | State: questions and argument were within latitude to comment on evidence; Bale failed to object at trial and cannot show incurable prejudice | Court: Claims fail — no flagrant misconduct shown; context and lack of timely objections defeat claims |
| PRP claims (amended information, perjury, opinion testimony, speedy arraignment, missing transcripts) | Bale: delay in amended information, witnesses perjured, impermissible opinion testimony, district court lacked arraignment jurisdiction, incomplete transcript prejudiced appeal | State: amended information supported by jury verdict; allegations speculative or outside record; district courts have concurrent jurisdiction; Bale did not show actual and substantial prejudice | Court: Denied PRP — claims either previously litigated, untimely, unsupported by the record, or fail to show constitutional prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Dell v. State, 183 Wn.2d 680 (discusses abuse of discretion standard when court mistakenly believes it lacks authority)
- Graham v. State, 181 Wn.2d 878 (standard‑range sentencing under the Sentencing Reform Act)
- Grier v. State, 171 Wn.2d 17 (framework for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in Washington)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Kjorsvik v. State, 117 Wn.2d 93 (purpose of amended information and notice to accused)
- Thorgerson v. State, 172 Wn.2d 438 (standard for prosecutorial misconduct review and requirement to show prejudice)