State Of Washington, V Ruben Payan Acuna, 54302-8

In Nov. 2018 Payan went to Galindo’s apartment armed, demanded Franco (who Payan believed had his wallet), pointed a handgun, struck Galindo with the butt, shot him in the legs, took his phone, and left.
At trial Payan testified he acted in self-defense; the jury convicted him of first‑degree burglary and second‑degree assault and returned special verdicts finding he was armed with a firearm for each offense.
The trial court applied the burglary antimerger statute, increasing Payan’s offender score, and sentenced him to a 128‑month standard‑range term with consecutive firearm enhancements of 36 and 60 months.
On appeal Payan argued (1) ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not ask that the two firearm enhancements run concurrently; (2) the judgment was facially invalid because his name was incorrect; and (3) the firearm enhancements were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt because the court did not enter written findings.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, rejecting the ineffective assistance claim and the written‑findings challenge, but remanded to amend the judgment caption to add “aka Ruben Acuna Payan” to avoid confusion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to request concurrent firearm enhancements	Payan: counsel was deficient for not requesting concurrent firearm enhancements; relief supported by SRA policy and cases recognizing discretion for concurrent firearm sentences	State: firearm enhancements are mandatory and must run consecutively under RCW 9.94A.533(3)(e); request would have been legally unavailable	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; counsel correctly stated the law—firearm enhancements are mandatory consecutive; no relief
Incorrect name on judgment and sentence	Payan: caption used wrong name, rendering judgment facially invalid and requiring resentencing	State: investigation showed caption name valid but alternative "aka" exists; omission was not prejudicial	Court: Not facially invalid; remand to add “aka Ruben Acuna Payan” to caption to avoid confusion; no resentencing
Need for written findings to impose firearm enhancements	Payan: sentencing court lacked written findings proving enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt	State: jury returned special verdicts finding defendant was armed; no challenge to instructions or sufficiency	Court: Jury special verdicts satisfied the Delgado rule; no additional written findings required

State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (2011) (sets standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under Washington law)
State v. Linville, 191 Wn.2d 513 (2018) (prejudice and ineffective assistance standards applied to sentencing)
State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450 (2017) (effective‑assistance standard and deficiency analysis)
State v. McFarland, 189 Wn.2d 47 (2017) (distinguishes firearm convictions from firearm enhancements regarding sentencing discretion)
State v. Brown, 139 Wn.2d 20 (1999) (firearm enhancements are mandatory and consecutive; courts lack discretion to make them concurrent)
State v. McGill, 112 Wn. App. 95 (2002) (counsel’s failure to inform court of sentencing discretion can warrant resentencing when discretion exists)
State v. Mandefaro, 14 Wn. App. 2d 825 (2020) (declines to depart from Brown on firearm enhancement concurrency)
In re Pers. Restraint of Delgado, 149 Wn. App. 223 (2009) (jury must prove any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum)