State of Washington v. Julian Miguel Juarez
34638-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- On Jan. 21, 2016 Julian Juarez, in violation of an existing no-contact domestic violence order, assaulted the mother of his children, Eugenia Gutierrez, in a parking lot and on adjacent grass while their children were present. Witnesses saw him grab her hair, drag her, and strike her multiple times; police photographed her injuries.
- The State charged Juarez with three counts: (1) assault in violation of a protection order (class C felony), (2) felony violation of a protection order based on prior violations (class C felony), and (3) second-degree assault (charged as assault with intent to commit unlawful imprisonment).
- The jury convicted Juarez on all three counts and found domestic-relationship and presence-of-minors aggravators for each count. Juarez stipulated to two prior no-contact violations at trial.
- At sentencing the court imposed the statutory maximum 60 months on counts 1 and 2, 57 months on count 3, and added a 12-month aggravating enhancement for presence of minors—resulting in an aggregate sentence (and community custody entries) that the parties later disputed as exceeding statutory maxima; the judgment also erroneously included medical-costs LFO language despite the trial court finding Juarez indigent.
- On appeal Juarez argued (inter alia) that (a) convictions on both counts 1 and 2 violated double jeopardy (unit-of-prosecution under RCW 26.50.110), (b) count 1 was improperly supported by second-degree-assault predicate prohibited by RCW 26.50.110(4), (c) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a lesser-included instruction (fourth-degree assault) on count 3, and (d) sentencing errors (exceeding statutory maximum and erroneous LFOs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Juarez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions on both §26.50.110(4)/(5) counts (assault in violation of protection order and felony violation based on prior violations) violate double jeopardy under unit-of-prosecution analysis | The counts are distinct and the State may charge both theories under the statute; apply same-evidence test | Juarez: both counts punish the same single "violation" (one continuous assault), so unit of prosecution is one; convicting on both violates double jeopardy | Vacated count 1 (assault in violation of protection order). Applying unit-of-prosecution test, the court found only one unit of violation and double jeopardy barred both convictions under the same statute. |
| Whether count 1 was improperly susceptible to being predicated on second-degree assault (prohibited by RCW 26.50.110(4)) | State did not preserve argument that jury used second-degree assault as the predicate; also relied on other theories at trial | Juarez: statute prohibits elevating a violation to a felony based on second-degree assault; jury instructions/argument allowed that impermissible predicate | Court did not reach this issue after resolving double jeopardy by vacating count 1. |
| Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a lesser-included instruction (fourth-degree assault) on count 3 (second-degree assault) | The State argued evidence supported felony theory (assault with intent to commit unlawful imprisonment), so no reasonable basis for lesser instruction | Juarez argued facts allowed rational jury to find only fourth-degree assault | No ineffective assistance — court held the evidence (hair‑grabbing, dragging, directing into car) supported the unlawful-imprisonment theory; a lesser-included instruction was not required. |
| Whether sentencing exceeded statutory maximum (aggravator and community custody) and whether medical-cost LFOs were erroneous | State concedes aggravator/community-custody additions produced an excessive sentence and concedes the judgment contains clerical LFO error | Juarez argued the 12-month aggravator plus community custody pushed punishment beyond the statutory maximum; also objected to medical-costs LFO contrary to oral indigence finding | Remanded for resentencing on count 2 to comply with statutory maximum and corrected community custody entries; judgment amended to strike medical-costs LFO. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reeder, 184 Wn.2d 805 (statutory unit-of-prosecution analysis governs multiple convictions under same statute)
- State v. Barbee, 187 Wn.2d 375 (aggravated sentence cannot exceed statutory maximum)
- State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (two‑part test for inferior‑degree/offense instructions)
- State v. Boyd, 174 Wn.2d 470 (prison + community custody cannot exceed statutory maximum)
- State v. Leonard, 184 Wn.2d 505 (medical-costs LFOs are discretionary)
- State v. Brown, 159 Wn. App. 1 (each discrete act can be a separate violation under RCW 26.50.110)
- State v. Allen, 150 Wn. App. 300 (focus on defendant's actions when determining unit of prosecution for no-contact violations)