State Of Washington, V. Victor Estrada Franco, 81511-3

Background

April 2019: Burien police found Victor Estrada Franco in a car with Jayonna Graver, who had an active domestic violence no-contact order (DVNCO) against him; Franco was arrested and charged in King County District Court with misdemeanor DVNCO.
At arraignment, Franco’s attorney entered a not guilty plea but did not advise Franco that he had an absolute, one-time right to plead guilty at arraignment or that pleading not guilty could allow the State to refile the charge as a felony based on prior convictions.
The State refiled in superior court as a felony (RCW 26.50.110) relying on Franco’s five prior DVNCO convictions; the district court misdemeanor charge was dismissed without prejudice.
Franco twice moved to withdraw the district-court not guilty plea before trial (and again in superior court), arguing ineffective assistance of his arraignment counsel; the motions were denied on procedural grounds.
Franco was tried in superior court, stipulated to two prior convictions, was convicted of felony DVNCO, and received a downward-departure sentence of 20 months; he appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at arraignment.
The Court of Appeals held counsel’s failure to advise was deficient and prejudicial, reversed the denial of the plea-withdrawal motion, and remanded for arraignment on the original gross misdemeanor charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Franco)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to advise Franco of his absolute right to plead guilty at arraignment and the risk of refiling as a felony constituted deficient performance	Counsel failed to inform Franco of the one-time right to plead guilty and the consequences of pleading not guilty	Counsel’s performance was adequate or any omission was reasonable under the circumstances	Held deficient: counsel’s omission fell below objective reasonableness; no legitimate strategic reason existed (counsel should have recognized risk from prior convictions)
Whether Franco was prejudiced by counsel’s omission (i.e., would reasonably have pled guilty)	Franco would have pled guilty to the misdemeanor if properly advised; contemporaneous attempts to withdraw support credibility	State argued mere assertion is insufficient and other factors could show rational choice to plead not guilty	Held prejudicial: contemporaneous motions and evidence (contacts in car; prior convictions) make pleading guilty a rational decision; confidence in outcome undermined
Appropriate remedy and next steps	Vacate felony conviction and restore ability to plead to original misdemeanor	State can refile or proceed as allowed; if Franco again pleas not guilty, State may dismiss misdemeanor	Court reversed denial of plea-withdrawal, remanded for arraignment on the original gross misdemeanor; if Franco pleads guilty he may then move to vacate the felony judgment; if he pleads not guilty, State may dismiss misdemeanor

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222 (1987) (recognizes Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel under Washington law)
State v. Estes, 188 Wn.2d 450 (2017) (de novo review and standard for counsel’s failure to research matters central to the defense)
In re Personal Restraint of Burlingame, 3 Wn. App. 2d 600 (2018) (attorney’s failure to advise of one-time right to plead guilty at arraignment found deficient)
State v. Buckman, 190 Wn.2d 51 (2018) (a defendant’s uncorroborated, retrospective claim of what plea he would have entered is generally insufficient to show prejudice)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reason can establish deficient performance)