State Of Washington v. Juan Garcia-mendez
74110-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- On April 1, 2013, town car driver Richard Powell was accosted, shot three times in the chest, and nearly died; appellant Juan Garcia‑Mendez was later identified as the shooter and also sustained injuries.
- Powell carried a gun and reached for it when confronted; an exchange of gunfire occurred.
- Evidence at trial included surveillance video, a video‑forensics opinion, DNA linking Garcia‑Mendez to blood and a bullet, and testimony from his cellmate that Garcia‑Mendez said they went out to rob and do damage.
- Garcia‑Mendez was charged with first‑degree assault and unlawful possession of a firearm; jury convicted on both counts and found sentence‑enhancing allegations true; trial court imposed a total sentence of 400 months.
- On appeal Garcia‑Mendez claimed prosecutorial misconduct for rebuttal remarks (including calling the assault “easily an attempted murder”), argued insufficiency of proof of intent/self‑defense, and the parties agreed the trial court double‑counted a 60‑month firearm enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Garcia‑Mendez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial reference to "attempted murder" in rebuttal | Comment merely responded to defense challenge to intent and relied on evidence (three point‑blank chest shots); not incurably prejudicial | Single uncharged‑crime reference was inflammatory and diverted jury; waived only if curable by instruction | Misconduct to mention attempted murder, but isolated, responsive, and curable if objected to; no reversible error because no objection and prejudice was not incurable |
| Prosecutor expressed personal opinion / lowered burden of proof | Argument was rooted in evidence and trial‑court instructions emphasized State’s burden beyond a reasonable doubt | Statements like “we made it easy for you” and “it’s a no‑brainer” improperly expressed opinion and minimized burden | Not a clear and unmistakable personal‑opinion error given context; any prejudice could have been cured by objection |
| Misstatement of law re: aggressor and intent (use of earlier intent evidence) | Cellmate testimony about going out to rob was relevant to defendant’s intent that day and thus to aggressor status and intent to inflict great bodily harm | Focusing on defendant’s earlier intent misstates instruction requiring acts at time of confrontation | Not a misstatement; prosecutor properly tied earlier intent to the confrontation and also relied on video showing the defendant accosted Powell |
| Sentencing error: double‑counted firearm enhancement | State concedes trial court imposed the 60‑month enhancement twice in calculating the exceptional sentence | Garcia‑Mendez requested correction / resentencing | Parties agree error occurred; conviction affirmed but case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44 (2006) (framework for reviewing closing‑argument misconduct and when objections are required)
- State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (2012) (flagrant‑misconduct standard and curable prejudice analysis)
- State v. Boehning, 127 Wn. App. 511 (2005) (reversal where prosecutor argued dismissed counts supported conviction by facts not in evidence)
- State v. Echevarria, 71 Wn. App. 595 (1993) (improper passion‑inflaming appeals to jury about social problems)
- State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727 (2009) (distinguishing prosecutorial misconduct review from ineffective‑assistance claims)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Cross, 180 Wn.2d 664 (2014) (explaining that failure to object in closing argument ordinarily is not deficient performance of counsel)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647 (2004) (same)
- State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (2016) (factors for waiving appellate costs)
Affirmed in part; remanded for resentencing to correct the doubled firearm enhancement; appellate costs waived.