State Of Washington, V Richard Carl Howard, Ii, 49319-5

Background

Defendant Richard Howard (aka King Miller) was charged with unlawful imprisonment (class C felony) and fourth-degree assault (gross misdemeanor) after restraining his girlfriend, Brandy Wright, when she attempted to leave their home. Jury convicted Howard of unlawful imprisonment and acquitted him of assault; court sentenced him to 51 months.
Before trial Howard moved to represent himself; the trial court conducted a brief colloquy, warned him about difficulties of self-representation, said it could not state his exact sentencing range, and noted there was likely a “substantial period of imprisonment.” The court found Howard’s waiver of counsel was "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" and allowed him to proceed pro se.
The record did not include any explicit statement of the maximum penalties for the charged offenses, nor other evidence showing Howard knew those maximums.
On appeal Howard argued his waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent because the court did not inform him of maximum sentences; he also raised additional SOG claims (sufficiency of evidence, adequacy of charging document, speedy trial).
The Court of Appeals held the waiver was invalid because the trial court failed to inform Howard of the maximum penalties and the record did not otherwise show he knew them; it reversed and remanded for a new trial but rejected Howard’s other claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Howard’s waiver of counsel knowing and intelligent though the court did not state maximum penalties?	State: totality of circumstances (court warned of substantial imprisonment and Howard had prior self-rep experience) sufficed to show knowing waiver.	Howard: waiver invalid because court failed to inform him of maximum penalties and record does not show he otherwise knew them.	Waiver invalid. Court must inform defendant of maximum penalty or record must otherwise show defendant knew it; neither occurred.
Is a colloquy specifically required to include maximum penalty?	State: colloquy wording need not recite exact maximum if overall warnings convey seriousness.	Howard: Acrey/DeWeese require at minimum informing defendant of maximum penalty or record showing awareness.	Court: Maximum-penalty knowledge is a minimum requirement; absence of colloquy requires the record to otherwise show awareness.
Was the evidence sufficient to support unlawful imprisonment conviction?	Howard: State failed to prove he acted knowingly.	State: testimony showed intentional restraint and Wright’s testimony supported knowing restraint.	Sufficient: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational jury could find knowing restraint.
Were the charging document and speedy-trial rights defective?	Howard: Information omitted essential elements; speedy-trial violated.	State: information tracked statutory language; trial occurred within CrR 3.3 deadlines after competency proceedings.	Rejected: information was adequate; speedy-trial rights were not violated.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Acrey, 103 Wn.2d 203 (Wash. 1984) (trial court colloquy should at minimum inform defendant of nature/classification of charge, maximum penalty, and existence of technical rules)
State v. DeWeese, 117 Wn.2d 369 (Wash. 1991) (colloquy preferred and record must reflect defendant understood seriousness and possible maximum penalty)
State v. Silva, 108 Wn. App. 536 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (failure to advise defendant of maximum penalty invalidates waiver despite other indicia of competence)
City of Bellevue v. Acrey is addressed by Acrey above; Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires waiver be made with eyes open)
State v. Madsen, 168 Wn.2d 496 (Wash. 2010) (self-representation is a waiver of counsel and is not absolute)
In re Personal Restraint of Rhome, 172 Wn.2d 654 (Wash. 2011) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
State v. Hahn, 106 Wn.2d 885 (Wash. 1986) (defendant bears burden to show waiver was not knowing and intelligent)
State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (Wash. 2014) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153 (Wash. 2013) (charging document must include essential elements)