Opinion
No. 29617-9-II.
Filed: March 23, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County. Docket No. 02-1-03014-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 10/11/2002. Judge signing: Hon. Bryan E Chushcoff.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Fernando Arenas-Salazar (Appearing Pro Se), Wa Corr Cntr 845708, P.O. Box 900, Shelton, WA 98584.
Kathryn A. Russell Selk, Attorney at Law, PO Box 30124, Seattle, WA 98113-0124.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Kathleen Proctor, Pierce County Prosecuting Atty Ofc, Rm 946, 930 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, WA 98402-2102.
Fernando Arenas-Zalazar entered a guilty plea to second degree rape and the trial court entered a judgment and sentence for the crime. Arenas-Zalazar now contends that his guilty plea was invalid because the trial court failed to advise him that this sentence would include lifetime community custody. We affirm.
Facts
By amended information, the State charged Arenas-Zalazar with one count of second degree rape. The trial court accepted Arenas-Zalazar's guilty plea on September 4, 2002.
At the plea hearing, an interpreter translated the proceedings and Arenas-Zalazar's plea into Spanish and the court determined that the plea was "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 7. At the October 2002 sentencing hearing, the trial court reviewed a presentence investigation report, verified that Arenas-Zalazar's plea was voluntary, and then imposed a sentence within the standard range, which included a lifetime of community custody.
Analysis I. Defendant's Guilty Plea
Arenas-Zalazar argues that his guilty plea is invalid because the court failed to advise him that his sentence would include a lifetime of community custody.
A guilty plea fails to meet constitutional due process standards if it is not made voluntarily, competently, and with an understanding of the charges and the consequences of the plea. CrR 4.2(d); In re Barr, 102 Wn.2d 265, 269, 684 P.2d 712 (1984). The State has the burden to prove the validity of a guilty plea and we determine if it has met this burden by examining the totality of the circumstances. State v. Ross, 129 Wn.2d 279, 287, 916 P.2d 405 (1996); State v. Branch, 129 Wn.2d 635, 642, 919 P.2d 1228 (1996). But we presume validity if (1) the State has filed a valid information detailing "the acts and the state of mind necessary to constitute the crime"; and (2) the defendant informs the court of a written plea statement that he has read, understood, and signed. Matter of Ness, 70 Wn. App. 817, 821, 855 P.2d 1191 (1993) (citation omitted); State v. Smith, 134 Wn.2d 849, 852, 953 P.2d 810 (1998).
Arenas-Zalazar emphasizes that page four of the plea statement originally described the standard range for community custody as 36-48 months, but that this had been scratched out and replaced with "life." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 13. Although Arenas-Zalazar's initials are next to this change, he contends that because the initials are not dated, they are of questionable validity. He also asserts that the court did "nothing" at the time of the plea to clarify that a consequence of his plea was a sentence of community custody for life. Br. of Appellant at 6.
The record does not show that the community custody term was material toArenas-Zalazar's decision to accept the plea agreement. It does show, however, that Arenas-Zalazar made a voluntary and intelligent plea with a complete understanding of its consequences.
First, it is undisputed that although Arenas-Zalazar cannot speak English, a court interpreter translated all proceedings into Spanish. Second, page eight of the plea statement states that the prosecutor will recommend community custody for life. Third, Arenas-Zalazar's initials next to the Spanish interpretation of the prosecutor's recommendation on page eight mirror his initials on the standard sentencing range for community custody on page four.
Before the sentencing hearing, the trial court again asked Arenas-Zalazar numerous questions to determine the validity of the plea. Arenas-Zalazar stated that he understood the State's charges against him, the consequences of his plea, and that the court was not bound to follow the State's or defense recommendations. He said that he was entering his plea voluntarily and acknowledged his initials in the margin of the plea statement and his signature on the plea statement.
The presentence investigation report recommended a sentence of community custody for life and when the trial court asked Arenas-Zalazar's counsel if he had any objections to the report, counsel stated "No." RP at 10. Thus, Arenas-Zalazar has not shown that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by accepting a plea that was not "voluntary, knowing and made with sufficient understanding of its direct consequences." Br. of Appellant at 1 (Assignment of Error).
II. Statement of Additional Grounds for Review
Arenas-Zalazar filed a "statement of additional grounds for review" (SAG) in the form of a one page letter addressed to the trial judge. It does not enumerate additional grounds for relief neglected by his appellate counsel but merely suggests that (1) his plea was invalid; and (2) his trial attorney was ineffective. We have discussed the first complaint above and, thus, turn to his second assertion.
See RAP 10.10(a).
A defendant demonstrates ineffective assistance of counsel by showing that (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective and reasonable standard; and (2) counsel's errors were serious enough to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 418, 717 P.2d 722 (1986). The defendant must "show deficient representation based on the record established in the proceedings below." State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). In reviewing this claim, we consider all of the circumstances of the defendant's case. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 335.
Here, Arenas-Zalazar complains about how his trial attorney handled his guilty plea. But the record contains no evidence that his counsel's representation fell below an objective and reasonable standard.
Thus, Arenas-Zalazar has failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
MORGAN, and HUNT, C.J., concur.