State of Washington v. Jose Rafael Castro-Lino, 34966-7

Castro-Lino was convicted of second degree rape after a night of heavy drinking at a residence with underage partygoers.
Defense presented Mohamud’s testimony; Castro-Lino did not testify and memory/intoxication expert testimony declined.
Prosecutor argued in closing that Castro-Lino was a predator; defense suggested lack of clarity and intoxication undermined victim credibility.
Castro-Lino’s new counsel moved for a new trial alleging counsel prevented him from testifying and ineffective assistance; trial court denied.
Castro-Lino testified at the post-trial motion that he wanted to testify but followed counsel’s advice; the defense did not call its memory expert.
Court reviewed CrR 7.5 motion and prosecutorial-argument challenges for errors and prejudice, affirming the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
CrR 7.5 motion—abuse of discretion?	Castro-Lino argues the trial court abused its discretion denying the motion.	Motion should be granted because new counsel uncovered prejudice and potential testimony.	No abuse; motion denied based on Castro-Lino’s own testimony and lack of prejudice.
Was Castro-Lino prevented from testifying?	Defense claims counsel prevented Castro-Lino from testifying.	Castro-Lino voluntarily followed counsel’s advice not to testify.	Not prevented; defendant agreed to not testify; no reversible error.
Prosecutor’s closing argument—prejudice?	Prosecutor’s remarks were improper and prejudicial.	Any remarks were within permissible bounds and not prejudicial.	No prejudicial error; arguments consistent with evidence and jury instructions.

State v. Marks, 71 Wn.2d 295 (1967) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial decisions)
State v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (1971) (abuse of discretion; correct legal standard in discretion)
State v. Rundquist, 79 Wn. App. 786 (1995) (discretion and standard application in appellate review)
State v. Taylor, 60 Wn.2d 32 (1962) (jurisprudence on appellate review of discretionary rulings)
State v. Robinson, 138 Wn.2d 753 (1999) (constitutional right to testify; defendant bears decision to testify)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Foster, 140 Wn. App. 266 (2007) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions; prejudice standard)
State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51 (1991) (prosecutorial conduct and review of closing arguments)
State v. Belgarde, 110 Wn.2d 504 (1988) (limits on prosecutorial remarks; whether prejudicial)
State v. Guizzotti, 60 Wn. App. 289 (1991) (burden-shifting arguments; proper commentary on evidence)