State Of Washington, V. Tiffany April Cleaver
81241-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 2, 2021Background
- Tiffany Cleaver, former Papa John’s general manager, was charged with second-degree burglary after taking employee-written statements and shoving an employee; assault in the fourth degree was later amended to second-degree robbery.
- Cleaver, represented by appointed counsel, moved to waive counsel and represent herself; the trial court conducted an extensive colloquy, accepted a written waiver, and found her waiver knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- Eleven days before trial the State amended the information, replacing the misdemeanor assault with second-degree robbery (a felony); the court explained concurrent sentencing and trial proceeded.
- A jury convicted Cleaver of second-degree burglary and second-degree robbery; at sentencing the court found Cleaver indigent, orally imposed only mandatory LFOs, but used a pre-printed judgment form that included boilerplate language ordering DOC supervision fees.
- Cleaver requested her attorney’s client file when terminating counsel; the trial court denied production on work-product grounds and ordered only the State’s unmarked discovery be provided.
- On appeal Cleaver raised (1) invalid waiver of counsel, (2) denial of client file, (3) improper imposition of DOC supervision fees and errors on the judgment and sentence (failure to mark same criminal conduct); the court affirmed convictions, reversed denial of the client file, and remanded to correct the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of waiver — failure to inform of top of standard range | Cleaver: court should have informed her of the applicable standard range (top of range) rather than broader "maximum possible penalty." | State/Court: at waiver colloquy (pre-sentencing) informing defendant of statutory maximums is sufficient because offender score and standard range are set at sentencing. | Waiver valid; colloquy adequately informed Cleaver of maximum penalties and risks. |
| Validity of waiver — amended charge after waiver (prison vs jail) | Cleaver: amended information replacing assault with robbery materially increased exposure (prison) and required a new colloquy. | State/Court: a second colloquy is required only for a substantial change that increases potential penalty; this amendment did not increase Cleaver’s exposure because sentences were explained as concurrent. | No substantial change; no second colloquy required; waiver continued to be valid. |
| Production of client file | Cleaver: RPC 1.16(d) and CrR 4.7(h)(3) require counsel to provide the client file on termination; she sought her file (subject to redactions). | State/Court: trial court and prosecutor treated attorney work product and notes as exempt and denied production; State now concedes only subjective notes were withheld. | Reversed: attorney must produce client file generated during representation (subject to appropriate redactions); remand to compel production. |
| Supervision fees and judgment form errors | Cleaver: trial court intended to waive discretionary LFOs and not impose DOC supervision fees; judgment boilerplate improperly imposed fees and failed to mark same criminal conduct. | State/Court: boilerplate form inadvertently included supervision-fee language; parties agreed convictions were same criminal conduct but form omitted the box. | Remand: strike DOC supervision-fee language (court intended only mandatory LFOs) and correct the judgment to indicate same criminal conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Madsen, 168 Wn.2d 496 (Wash. 2010) (right to self-representation; courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of counsel)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves)
- State v. Modica, 136 Wn. App. 434 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (second colloquy not required where added charge did not increase maximum exposure)
- State v. Kennar, 135 Wn. App. 68 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (at plea/waiver stage courts operate on parties’ information; standard range established at sentencing)
- State v. Padgett, 4 Wn. App. 2d 851 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018) (defendant entitled to client file upon request; attorney may redact limited items)
- State v. Rhome, 172 Wn.2d 654 (Wash. 2011) (appellate standard for reviewing waiver-of-counsel rulings)