State Of Washington, V. Tony Joseph Williams, 81504-1

Background

In August 2018 Williams and Naylor planned to rob Clute at a car wash; Chavez set up a drug buy decoy. Williams approached Clute with a stun device; after Clute wrestled it away and drove off, Williams fired one shot that struck Clute’s neck and paralyzed him.
Surveillance video, a purple Smith & Wesson .40 caliber casing at the scene, abandoned clothing with Williams’s DNA, and matching purple .40 caliber bullets/magazine recovered from Williams’s vehicle linked him to the shooting.
Naylor testified under a plea deal about the robbery plan and Williams’s actions; Chavez and Clute also testified; jury convicted Williams of attempted first degree robbery (with firearm), first degree assault (with firearm), and firearm-possession counts (one later severed/guilty plea).
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive terms (total 428 months plus community custody); Williams argued the robbery and assault were the same criminal conduct and challenged several trial rulings on appeal.
On appeal Williams raised (1) jury unanimity/sufficiency for alternative means of attempted first degree robbery, (2) same-criminal-conduct for sentencing, (3) exclusion of impeachment evidence against the lead detective (ER 608(b) and confrontation rights), and (4) a claimed erroneous community custody fee in the written judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Williams)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Jury unanimity / sufficiency for alternative means of attempted 1st‑deg robbery	Insufficient evidence for the "armed with a deadly weapon" and "display of what appears to be a firearm" alternatives; therefore unanimity required.	Williams invited any instructional error by proposing the instruction that listed all three alternatives; invited error bars the claim.	Affirmed: invited error doctrine precludes the unanimity challenge.
Same criminal conduct for assault and attempted robbery	The shooting occurred during the robbery/flight and so both convictions should count as the same criminal conduct, reducing offender score.	The assault and attempted robbery involved different intents and a temporal gap allowing new intent; thus separate offenses.	Affirmed: trial court did not err—different intent and sufficient interlude/supporting evidence.
Exclusion of prior-misconduct impeachment of Detective Fontenot (ER 608(b)) / right to present a defense	Court erred in prohibiting cross-examination about Fontenot’s prior misconduct and resignation; exclusion violated confrontation/right to present a defense.	The prior incidents were collateral, remote in time, low probative value, and Fontenot was not a crucial eyewitness; exclusion was within discretion and harmless.	Affirmed: evidentiary ruling not an abuse of discretion; even if error, exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Community custody supervision fee in judgment and sentence	Court orally waived discretionary LFOs; written judgment nonetheless included a DOC community custody fee.	(State concedes or does not oppose correction)	Remanded to strike the discretionary community custody fee from the J&S.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Owens, 180 Wn.2d 90 (Wash. 2014) (unanimity rule for alternative‑means crimes and when express unanimity is required)
State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97 (Wash. 1998) (limitations on invited error and venue/instruction issues)
State v. Grantham, 84 Wn. App. 854 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (separate crimes where temporal gap and new intent are shown)
State v. Freeman, 118 Wn. App. 365 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (assault during robbery can be separate conduct when force exceeds what is needed to effect the robbery)
State v. Lee, 188 Wn.2d 473 (Wash. 2017) (limits on relevance of prior false statements for credibility impeachment)
State v. Orn, 197 Wn.2d 343 (Wash. 2021) (framework for when exclusion of defense evidence violates the right to present a defense)
State v. Aldana Graciano, 176 Wn.2d 531 (Wash. 2013) (construction of "same criminal conduct" statute and burden on defendant)
State v. York, 28 Wn. App. 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980) (allowing impeachment of a crucial, central investigator witness)
Bowman v. State, 198 Wn.2d 609 (Wash. 2021) (striking discretionary community custody fee when court intended to impose only mandatory LFOs)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (Confrontation Clause and cross‑examination for bias/credibility)