From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Padilla

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Aug 23, 2007
140 Wn. App. 1018 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)

Opinion

No. 25344-9-III.

August 23, 2007.


Benjamin Padilla appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, use of drug paraphernalia, driving while license suspended in the third degree, and obstructing a law enforcement officer. He assigns error to the prosecutor's argument. And he argues that his lawyer was ineffective because of a failed trial strategy. We find no merit to either claim and affirm the convictions.

FACTS

Mr. Padilla borrowed a car. A sheriff's deputy stopped him because the car's taillights did not work. The deputy asked for identification. Mr. Padilla did not have any. He gave the deputy a false name and birth date. The deputy could not locate the false name in computer records. He arrested Mr. Padilla for driving without a valid operator's license and without identification.

The deputy searched the car. He found a baggie in the ashtray. The baggie contained methamphetamine. The deputy found Mr. Padilla's suitcase in the backseat of the car. He searched the suitcase. He found a glass pipe with some marijuana residue.

The State charged Mr. Padilla with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), use of drug paraphernalia, driving while license suspended in the third degree, and obstructing a law enforcement officer.

Mr. Padilla testified at his trial. He admitted that he gave the police officer a false name and birth date. He admitted that he knew his license was suspended. But he said he wanted to see his daughter. And he denied knowledge of the methamphetamine.

The prosecutor suggested to the jury that Mr. Padilla was not credible because he lied to the officer.

The jury convicted Mr. Padilla of all charges.

DISCUSSION

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Mr. Padilla contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that Mr. Padilla had a propensity to commit crimes. Here is what the prosecutor argued:

And, then, importantly, when the officer asks him his name, he doesn't tell the truth; he lies. He tells the officer a bald-faced lie and he provides an explanation, he's good about in his testimony saying, "I'm going to see my daughter and I don't want to get arrested because then I can't see my daughter," and, again, that's something for you to digest. But the fact that he would lie to law enforcement is something I would ask you to consider when you assess credibility, okay? Most individuals, you know, when asked their name they're going to tell him their name.

Report of Proceedings at 117.

Mr. Padilla must show that the prosecutor's conduct was improper and that it prejudiced his defense. State v. Harvey, 34 Wn. App. 737, 740, 664 P.2d 1281 (1983). We review those comments in the context of the prosecutor's entire argument, the issues in the case, the evidence addressed in the argument, and the instructions given to the jury. State v. Bryant, 89 Wn. App. 857, 873, 950 P.2d 1004 (1998). "The prosecutor is permitted a reasonable latitude in arguing inferences from the evidence, including references to a witness's credibility." State v. Graham, 59 Wn. App. 418, 429, 798 P.2d 314 (1990) (citing State v. Johnson, 40 Wn. App. 371, 381, 699 P.2d 221 (1985)).

The prosecutor's comments here are a fair comment on the evidence; essentially Mr. Padilla lied once, and the jury should consider that. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Mr. Padilla next argues that his lawyer's advice that Mr. Padilla admit possession of the marijuana pipe was bad advice. The choice affected the credibility of the defense. Mr. Padilla does not deny on appeal that he actually owned the pipe.

We review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v. Shaver, 116 Wn. App. 375, 382, 65 P.3d 688 (2003). We begin with a strong presumption that defense counsel's performance was effective. Id. A defendant must overcome that presumption. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335, 337, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). Mr. Padilla must show two elements to make out a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 334-35; State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 705-06, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997). First, he must show that "defense counsel's representation was deficient." McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 334-35. This must be based on the trial record. Id. at 335.

And Mr. Padilla must also show that he was prejudiced by the deficient representation. Id. at 334-35; Stenson, 132 Wn.2d at 705-06. The threshold is that "but for" the defense counsel's error the outcome would have been different. State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 198, 86 P.3d 139 (2004); Stenson, 132 Wn.2d at 705-06. The fact that trial tactics were unsuccessful does not necessarily mean that the lawyer was ineffective. Varga, 151 Wn.2d at 199.

Here, the decision to admit a lesser charge in order to better defend against a more serious charge is strategic. Trial tactics and strategy are left to the judgment of counsel and will not be considered ineffective assistance of counsel on review. Id. This is not ineffective assistance; it is an approach to trying the case that did not work.

We affirm Mr. Padilla's convictions.

A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.

SCHULTHEIS, J., BROWN, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Padilla

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Aug 23, 2007
140 Wn. App. 1018 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
Case details for

State v. Padilla

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. BENJAMIN PADILLA, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three

Date published: Aug 23, 2007

Citations

140 Wn. App. 1018 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)
140 Wash. App. 1018