State Of Washington v. Justin P. Davis
76747-0
Wash. Ct. App.Jul 31, 2017Background
- On Nov. 17, 2014, Justin Phillip Davis fired a gun from a moving vehicle after following another car; police recovered spent shell casings and two firearms from a car he was riding in/associated with, and a latent fingerprint on a cartridge matched Davis.
- The State charged Davis with drive-by shooting, three counts of first-degree assault while armed, unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, and witness tampering.
- Davis waived counsel, proceeded pro se with standby counsel, and the jury trial began; after several days of testimony he pleaded guilty to drive-by shooting (RCW 9A.36.045(1)) and unlawful possession of a firearm.
- Davis signed a written plea statement admitting he fired a gun from a moving vehicle and acknowledged a prior serious-offense conviction restricting firearm possession; he also stipulated to an offender score of 7.
- He later moved to withdraw his plea, arguing the court lacked an adequate factual basis; the trial court denied the motion, sentenced him to 70 months, imposed mandatory fees, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Davis's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea lacked factual basis under CrR 4.2(d) | Court accepted guilty plea without adequate factual basis for drive-by shooting | Trial record (witness testimony, physical evidence, signed plea statement) supplies sufficient factual basis; CrR 4.2(d) procedural and not raised below | Court declined review of new CrR 4.2(d) claim and affirmed; also noted record provides adequate factual basis |
| Whether Davis could withdraw plea (voluntariness) | Plea was ambiguous/qualified and involuntary | Plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made (signed statement and on-the-record colloquy) | Court found plea voluntary and denied motion to withdraw; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether offender score incorrectly included a Louisiana burglary | 2007 LA burglary not comparable and should not count | Louisiana conviction was not included in the stipulated offender score; score properly calculated | Court found no error—the LA burglary was not counted; offender score upheld |
| Whether community custody conditions were unconstitutionally vague | Conditions (geographic limits, crime-related treatment/prohibitions) too vague | Conditions mirror RCW 9.94A.704 statutory/DOC-authorized directives and are construed in context | Conditions not unconstitutionally vague; sentencing court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether mandatory $200 criminal filing fee required individualized ability-to-pay inquiry | Court failed to inquire into ability to pay | Fee is statutorily mandatory under RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) and must be imposed regardless of ability to pay | Fee properly imposed; no individualized inquiry required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gentry, 183 Wn.2d 749 (cites standard for considering issues raised first on appeal)
- State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578 (same appellate preservation principles)
- State v. Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d 244 (discusses manifest constitutional error review)
- State v. Branch, 129 Wn.2d 635 (holding that factual-basis requirement is procedural and plea voluntariness presumption)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Cross, 178 Wn.2d 519 (defining factual-basis sufficiency for pleas)
- State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (standards for vagueness challenges to community custody conditions)
- State v. Lundy, 176 Wn. App. 96 (holding criminal filing fee is mandatory under statute)