State Of Washington v. Kenneth Allen Clark
76027-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Kenneth Clark was charged with first- and second-degree assault, unlawful imprisonment, and felony harassment arising from an August 3, 2014 altercation with his live-in girlfriend.
- The trial court ordered a competency evaluation after concerns about Clark's fitness; he was found incompetent and committed for restoration to Western State Hospital but waited 96 days in county jail for admission because no beds were available.
- Clark moved to dismiss for (1) substantive due process violation based on the 96-day delay, (2) speedy-trial violations under CrR 3.3 and governmental misconduct under CrR 8.3(b), and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied dismissal and later found him competent; bench trial convictions followed.
- Defense counsel questioned the victim about prior alleged incidents as part of a tactic to challenge admissibility under ER 404(b); counsel did not pursue a diminished-capacity defense at trial.
- The trial court imposed only mandatory LFOs ($500 victim penalty, $100 DNA fee, $200 filing fee) after finding Clark could not pay; appellate court found error in failing to consider Clark’s ability to pay certain mandatory fees given his mental-health condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clark) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process — 96‑day wait for restoration | Delay violated liberty interest; remedy should be dismissal of charges | Delay violated due process but dismissal is not an appropriate remedy | Court assumed violation but declined to create dismissal remedy; convictions not vacated |
| Speedy trial (CrR 3.3) | Time waiting for competency services should not be excluded when caused by governmental mismanagement | CrR 3.3(e)(1) tolls time from order for competency exam to order finding competency regardless of cause | Time properly tolled; denial of dismissal for speedy‑trial violation affirmed |
| Governmental misconduct (CrR 8.3(b)) | Delay and system mismanagement prejudiced Clark’s ability to present a defense | Mismanagement alone insufficient; must show actual prejudice to fair trial | No showing of prejudice to defense; trial court did not abuse discretion denying dismissal |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel ineffective for not pursuing diminished‑capacity and for eliciting prior assault testimony | Counsel had tactical reasons; no deficient performance or prejudice shown | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; ineffective‑assistance claims fail |
| Legal financial obligations (LFOs) | Trial court erred by imposing mandatory LFOs without considering Clark’s ability to pay given his mental condition | Mandatory LFOs generally imposed but statute requires ability‑to‑pay inquiry for defendants with mental health conditions | Remanded: trial court must consider Clark’s ability to pay the criminal filing fee and DNA testing fee |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) (due process limits on indefinite commitment of defendants found incompetent)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (government has regulatory interest in community safety that can justify pretrial detention)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (2011) (strong presumption of reasonableness for counsel’s strategic choices)