State v. Mehrabian, 175 Wash. App. 678

Mehrabian was convicted on five counts of first-degree theft, one count of attempted first-degree theft, and one count of witness tampering; he appeals on waiver of counsel, jury instruction on statute of limitations, sufficiency of evidence, and same-conduct; State cross-appeals the offender-score calculation.
Trial court found an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel; Mehrabian briefly pursued standby counsel and ultimately chose to proceed pro se with standby counsel available, but repeatedly declined public-defense appointment.
The court instructed the jury on count I with a specific date of April 17, 2006, and the case involved deceptive invoicing to induce the City to pay for equipment.
The State presented evidence Mehrabian used deception to obtain City property and that the City relied on false invoices and misrepresentations; some items were older or non-warranty artifacts and bids were fabricated.
Counts IV and V were found not to be the same criminal conduct because the acts occurred on different dates and the defendant’s intent differed; the City paid for these acts separately.
The State cross-appealed the omission of a 1992 theft conviction from Mehrabian’s offender score, arguing the 10-year crime-free period did not restart the prior conviction; the court held the 1992 conviction must be included under RCW 9.94A.525(2)(b) and Blair’s interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of right to counsel valid?	Mehrabian equivocal on waiver; record shows conditional intent.	Mehrabian did not unequivocally waive; relied on standby counsel.	Unequivocal waiver established; trial court did not err.
To convict instruction and statute of limitations	To convict could extend beyond limitations due to continuing impulse.	Charge fixed on a single date; no extension to beyond limitations.	Instruction proper; no violation of limitations.
Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree theft	City relied on deception and value over $5,000.	Evidence insufficient to prove deception and reliance.	Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions.
Same criminal conduct for counts IV and V	Acts part of a continuing impulse; should be same conduct.	Acts sequential with different dates and intents.	Not the same criminal conduct; sequential acts.
Offender-score: include 1992 conviction?	Wash-out period did not apply due to revival via new confinement.	Wash-out should apply; the prior wash-out conviction was extinguished.	1992 conviction must be included; remand for resentencing.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation requires unequivocal waiver of counsel)
State v. DeWeese, 117 Wn.2d 369 (1991) (requiring unequivocal Faretta waiver; no automatic right to standby counsel)
State v. Modica, 136 Wn. App. 434 (2006) (unequivocal pro se waiver; record context matters)
State v. Silva, 108 Wn. App. 536 (2001) (record-based evaluation of waivers of counsel)
Dash v. State, 163 Wn. App. 63 (2011) (statute-of-limitations issues may be raised on appeal; to convict instruction proper)
Blair, 57 Wn. App. 512 (1990) (interpretation of confinement pursuant to a felony conviction for wash-out)
State v. Haddock, 141 Wn.2d 103 (2000) (same-criminal-conduct and offender-score framework)
State v. Grantham, 84 Wn. App. 854 (1997) (sequential vs. continuous acts in same-conduct analysis)
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (1997) (equivocal requests for pro se depend on record context)
State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561 (2001) (distinguishing genuine pro se requests from dissatisfaction with counsel)