State of Washington v. Joilene Tanya Maxwell, 34073-2

Maxwell is a registered sex offender (1989 conviction) required to file weekly transient check-in sheets; she had prior failures to register (1998, 2011).
She properly turned in sheets through September 2, 2015, but the sheriff's office recorded missing sheets for Sept. 9, 16, 23, and 30, 2015.
Maxwell was arrested Oct. 6, 2015; the prosecutor placed a 72-hour hold for failure-to-register charges, and registration clerk Dianne McCants spoke with Maxwell in jail.
McCants testified Maxwell said she "was using... so maybe I forgot," while Maxwell testified she told McCants she had turned the sheets in; defense argued lost sheets were unlikely.
At bench trial defense counsel waived a CrR 3.5 hearing and did not move to suppress Maxwell’s statements; the court credited the State and convicted Maxwell of failure to register.

Issue	Maxwell's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for waiving a CrR 3.5 hearing and not moving to suppress custodial statements to a state agent	Counsel performed deficiently by failing to suppress custodial statements made without Miranda warnings, prejudicing the verdict	Counsel reasonably believed the statements were non-responsive/non-interrogative; even if error, evidence of guilt was overwhelming so no prejudice	Rejected on the record: claim fails because the trial record lacks facts (e.g., whether Miranda warnings were given) necessary to assess counsel's performance; remedy is collateral attack (RAP 16.4) if Maxwell wishes to develop missing facts

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
McFarland v. State, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (claim of ineffective assistance must be shown from the record; collateral petition appropriate when record is inadequate)
Sargent v. State, 111 Wn.2d 641 (1988) (Miranda applies to custodial interrogation; interrogation includes words/actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial suspects must receive warnings before interrogation)
Heritage v. State, 152 Wn.2d 210 (2004) (state agents’ testimonial custodial statements are presumed involuntary without Miranda)
Innis v. Rhode Island, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (definition of interrogation under Miranda includes words or actions officers should know are likely to elicit incriminating responses)
Hendrickson v. State, 129 Wn.2d 61 (1996) (standard for evaluating counsel’s performance)
Cross v. State, 156 Wn.2d 580 (2006) (ineffective assistance claims reviewed de novo)