State Of Washington v. Kenneth Alfred Linville, Jr.
199 Wash. App. 461
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Following a series of Thurston County residential burglaries, police recovered numerous stolen items from Kenneth Linville’s home and those of co‑defendants.
- Linville was charged with 138 counts including leading organized crime, multiple burglary and theft counts, trafficking in stolen property, firearm offenses, and sentencing enhancements; jury convicted him of 137 offenses.
- The State’s theory: Linville led a burglary ring that stole items (including firearms) and trafficked them for financial gain; multiple co‑defendants testified against him.
- The statutory issue centered on RCW 9A.82.085, which bars joinder of offenses to a leading organized crime prosecution unless those offenses are part of the defined “pattern of criminal profiteering activity.”
- Linville did not object at trial to joinder under RCW 9A.82.085; on appeal he argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to joinder under RCW 9A.82.085 | Linville: counsel was deficient for not objecting; many counts were not predicate "criminal profiteering" offenses and thus improperly joined | State: either the listed predicate felonies apply only to out‑of‑state acts or the joinder was proper and harmless because evidence would convict anyway | Court: Counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial; joinder was statutory error under RCW 9A.82.085 — convictions reversed and remanded for separate trials |
| Whether RCW 9A.82.010(4)’s enumerated list limits which offenses may be joined to leading organized crime | Linville: the statute’s plain language limits predicate acts to the enumerated felonies; offenses not listed (e.g., burglary) cannot be joined | State: the enumerated list applies only to acts occurring outside Washington (alternative reading) | Court: Adopted Linville’s reading; the enumerated felonies define criminal profiteering and barred joinder of unlisted offenses |
| Whether the failure to object was prejudicial such that outcome would differ | Linville: had counsel sought severance, 56 counts (including all burglary counts and associated firearm enhancements) would have been severed and convictions/penalties altered | State: sufficient evidence existed so hypothetical separate trials would produce same results | Court: Prejudice shown — immediate trial outcome materially changed, including firearm enhancements tied to burglary counts; reversal and remand required |
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant was "armed" with a firearm for first‑degree burglary | State: guns were stolen during burglaries; actual possession by defendant or accomplice suffices to establish being armed | Linville: no nexus proven between defendant and firearms; no evidence of intent/willingness to use them | Court: Evidence sufficient — firearms taken in course of burglaries support "armed" element (actual possession by defendant or accomplice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Reichenbach v. State, 153 Wn.2d 126 (2004) (defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice for ineffective assistance claim)
- Brown v. State, 162 Wn.2d 422 (2007) (constructive possession analysis for "armed" in firearm enhancement context)
- Hernandez v. State, 172 Wn. App. 537 (2012) (actual possession of a firearm during burglary removes need to prove nexus to crime)
- Trujillo v. Nw Tr. Servs., Inc., 183 Wn.2d 820 (2015) ("criminal profiteering" defined as commission of specifically enumerated felonies)
- Jones v. State, 183 Wn.2d 327 (2015) (prejudice analysis showing different trial outcome can require reversal)