From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Dale Denton

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Mar 19, 2007
137 Wn. App. 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

Opinion

No. 56951-1-I.

March 19, 2007.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 05-1-04035-8, Linda Lau, J., entered August 29, 2005.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Eric Broman, Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, Seattle, WA.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Michael Paul Mohandeson, King Co Pros Office, Seattle, WA.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


A jury convicted Shannon Denton of assault. Denton contends the sentencing order requiring him to submit a biological sample for DNA identification analysis is an unconstitutional search and seizure. He also contends the court made numerous errors during his trial. Requiring a convicted felon to submit a biological sample for DNA identification analysis does not violate the felon's federal or state constitutional rights, and we disagree with Denton's claims of trial court error. We affirm.

Denton and Charles Dalton, neighbors in an apartment building, had an ongoing conflict stemming from Dalton's refusal to pay Denton $1,200 for a cell phone bill, though Denton had a small claims court judgment against Dalton for the money. On January 24, 2005, the conflict resurfaced and the men started fighting. A neighbor called 911 and reported that he heard a woman's screams, a man's voice, and a heavy thud against the wall. Denton and Dalton simultaneously called 911 to report the incident. Each alleged he was assaulted by the other.

When the police arrived, they found a knocked-over chair and other items scattered about in Dalton's apartment. The State charged Denton with first degree burglary.

Before trial, Denton sought to admit evidence regarding prior altercations between him and Dalton. The court determined that evidence of a November 2004 restraining order Denton had against Dalton was admissible to show bias and motive to fabricate, but evidence of another alleged incident was not. Ultimately, the State and the defendant both decided not to present evidence of the previous conflicts, except evidence of the disputed phone bill.

Denton also sought to introduce a letter from a neighbor, Tim Ward, who claimed he was also threatened by Dalton. According to Ward, Dalton, when he learned that Denton had filed a claim against him for the phone bill, said, "I am such a smooth talker in court, and have lied my way out of so many situations, to Community Service Officers, Police Officers, and to Judges, you have absolutely no way of winning." Def. Ex. 10. The court ruled the letter was not admissible.

At trial, Dalton appeared dressed as a woman, asked to be called "Venus," and identified the feminine voice on the 911 recording as his own. He testified that Denton had forced his way into his apartment after Dalton, hearing a voice in the hall, opened the door to investigate. Dalton also testified Denton threw a plant and a chair at him and that Dalton fended him off with a chair and then kicked Denton in the genitals.

Denton, though he did not testify at trial, claims Dalton grabbed his wrist and forcibly pulled him into the room.

The jury convicted Denton. As part of his sentence, the court ordered Denton to submit a biological sample for DNA identification analysis as required by RCW 43.43.754. Denton appeals that order and, in a statement of additional grounds, claims the trial court committed numerous errors.

RCW 43.43.754 requires all convicted felons to "have a biological sample collected for purposes of DNA identification analysis."

DISCUSSION

Biological Sample. Denton contends that the state-ordered DNA collection is an unreasonable search and seizure and thus violates his rights under the federal and state constitutions. This court recently held in State v. Surge, 122 Wn. App. 448, 460, 94 P.3d 345 (2004), review granted, 153 Wn.2d 1008, 111 P.3d 1190 (2005), that DNA collected under RCW 43.43.754, like Denton's, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Denton urges us to reconsider Surge, but we decline to do so.

Denton also argues that the collection violates article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Though article 1, section 7 provides greater protection to individual privacy rights than the Fourth Amendment, Denton has failed to provide the necessary Gunwall analysis, and this failure is fatal to his claim. State v. Nguyen, 134 Wn. App. 863, 871, 142 P.3d 1117 (2006).

State v. Jones, 146 Wn.2d 328, 332, 45 P.3d 1062 (2002).

State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986).

We find no violation of Denton's constitutional rights. Trial Court Errors. In a statement of additional grounds and motion to dismiss, Denton first contends that he was denied the right to represent himself. Criminal defendants have a federal and state constitutional right to waive assistance of counsel and represent themselves. State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561, 585, 23 P.3d 1046 (2001). "The defendant's request to proceed pro se must be unequivocal in the context of the record as a whole." Id. at 586. If a defendant appears with counsel, the court does not have to obtain an on-the-record waiver of the right to self-representation. State v. Thomas, 128 Wn.2d 553, 559, 910 P.2d 475 (1996). Denton had counsel at his arraignment. He claims he submitted a written request to represent himself to the court, but the record contains no such letter. Nor did Denton request to represent himself pro se at arraignment. We find no denial of his right to proceed pro se.

Denton also objects to the court's decisions to exclude a letter written by Denton's friend and neighbor, Timothy Ward, and evidence about Dalton's lifestyle. We review a court's decision to disallow evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Vreen, 143 Wn.2d 923, 932, 26 P.3d 236 (2001). In the letter, Ward reported overhearing Dalton tell Denton that he had a long history of lying to law enforcement officials. The court ruled the letter inadmissible because it was unauthenticated hearsay and included impermissible opinion evidence. We have reviewed the letter and the relevant colloquy and find no abuse of discretion. Nor did the court abuse its discretion when it granted the State's motion to preclude questions about Dalton's lifestyle or sexual orientation. These topics were not relevant to the issue of whether Denton assaulted Dalton.

Denton claims that Dalton dressed as a woman simply to garner sympathy from the jury, and the court abused its discretion in allowing Dalton to appear that way but prohibiting questions about his lifestyle. We have reviewed the transcript and find no abuse of discretion.

Next Denton contends Dalton lied when he testified, and argues had the 911 calls played for the jury included date information, Dalton's lying would have been obvious. Denton stipulated to the authenticity of the 911 tapes, and he had the opportunity to cross-examine Dalton about the timing of events. Denton failed to raise the time and date objection at trial, so it is not preserved for review. State v. Sauve, 100 Wn.2d 84, 87, 666 P.2d 894 (1983). And in any event, we see no abuse of discretion in admitting the 911 tapes without their time and date stamps.

Denton also complains that evidence of restraining orders he obtained against Dalton was not presented at trial, which he claims demonstrates prosecutorial misconduct. The court ruled that evidence of one previous restraining order was admissible, but Denton's counsel made a strategic decision not to offer it because the men had a history of obtaining restraining orders against each other, and discussing one would open the door for discussion of the others. Counsel has broad authority to determine trial strategy. State v. Cross, 156 Wn.2d 580, 612, 132 P.3d 80 (2006), cert. den., 127 S. Ct. 559 (U.S. 2006). Denton's counsel's decision was a legitimate trial strategy and certainly cannot support a claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Finally, Dalton complains that the judge ruled based on her beliefs and not the law. The judge's comments consisted of reasons for her rulings and reflect no prejudice. State v. Jenkins, 19 Wn.2d 181, 190, 142 P.2d 263 (1943) (statements which are reasons for a ruling are not prejudicial).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Dale Denton

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Mar 19, 2007
137 Wn. App. 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Dale Denton

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. SHANNON DALE DENTON, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Mar 19, 2007

Citations

137 Wn. App. 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
137 Wash. App. 1042