State of Washington v. Marco Antonio Gallegos
32841-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Dec 20–21, 2012: Michael Eby and Ryan Pederson were shot and killed; Eby found in trunk, Pederson in back seat of Eby’s car.\
- Investigators linked materials used to wrap Eby’s body to Troy Whalen’s home; Whalen, Jose Pineda, and Heriberto Villa gave recorded statements implicating each other and Marco Gallegos.\
- Gallegos (La Raza gang member) was present in Whalen’s garage armed the night of the confrontation; he shot Eby multiple times after Eby attacked Pineda; Pederson was later shot and killed by Villa.\
- Four co-defendants were charged with aggravated first-degree murder and related offenses; multiple continuances over ~18 months occurred while the State prepared and negotiated pleas with codefendants.\
- At trial the State presented cooperating-codefendant testimony (Whalen, Pineda, Villa) corroborated by non‑accomplice testimony and physical evidence; defense counsel extensively impeached accomplices but did not request a WPIC accomplice‑testimony caution.\
- Jury convicted Gallegos of two counts of aggravated first‑degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm; sentenced to life without parole. Gallegos appealed raising (1) ineffective assistance for failing to request accomplice instruction, (2) insufficiency of premeditation evidence as to Eby, and (3) speedy‑trial violation. The court affirmed and dismissed PRP.
Issues
| Issue | Gallegos' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not requesting WPIC 6.05 (accomplice caution) | Counsel was deficient for failing to request the cautionary instruction, which likely would have changed outcome | Counsel impeached accomplices, jurors received general credibility instructions, and accomplice testimony was corroborated by other evidence | No ineffective assistance: no reasonable probability of different outcome absent instruction |
| Sufficiency of evidence of premeditation for Eby’s murder | Accomplices testified shooting was unplanned / split‑second; so evidence supports at most second‑degree murder | Presence armed, motive, planning to confront, waiting and firing multiple fatal shots supports premeditation | Evidence sufficient for first‑degree murder — jurors could infer premeditation |
| Speedy‑trial violation (≈18‑month delay) | Delay and time in custody violated Sixth/A.Rt.I §22 rights; prosec./court mismanagement on severance contributed | Many continuances were reasonable (multiple defendants, plea negotiations, joint‑trial/Bruton issues, forensic scheduling); Gallegos repeatedly objected | No constitutional violation: delay triggered inquiry but balancing of Barker factors favors State |
| Additional claims in SAG (LFOs, prior‑conviction stipulation, gang evidence, omitted witnesses) | Various: ineffective assistance over stipulation; improper gang evidence; sentencing LFOs imposed without ability‑to‑pay inquiry; uninvestigated alibi witnesses | Stipulation conceded only prior conviction element for firearm charge; gang evidence admissible/strategic; most LFOs mandatory; factual claims outside record for PRP | Rejected: counsel’s choices reasonable; LFO challenge not reviewed (mostly mandatory); PRP dismissed as frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)\
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (inadmissible co‑defendant confession implicating defendant)\
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (redaction limits for co‑defendant statements)\
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (blanked redactions can violate Bruton)\
- State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628 (definition and proof of premeditation)\
- State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307 (premeditation inference from armed participation)\
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)\
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay presumptively prejudicial guidance)\
- State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273 (application of Barker factors in Washington)