Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: 60642-5
Title of Case: State Of Washington, Respondent V. Robert Lewis Martin Jr., Appellant
File Date: 04/13/2009
SOURCE OF APPEAL
Appeal from King County Superior Court
Docket No: 06-1-08452-3
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 09/04/2007
Judge signing: Honorable Mary I Yu
Authored by Anne Ellington
Concurring: Ronald Cox
Stephen J Dwyer
COUNSEL OF RECORD
Counsel for Appellant(s)
Washington Appellate Project
Attorney at Law
1511 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA, 98101
Oliver Ross Davis
Washington Appellate Project
1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
Seattle, WA, 98101-3647
Robert Lewis. Martin Jr. (Appearing Pro Se)
620 W. Jones
Kent, WA, 98032
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Prosecuting Atty King County
King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor
W554 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA, 98104
Patrick Halpern Hinds
King County Prosecutors Office
W554 King County Courthouse
516 3rd Ave
Seattle, WA, 98104-2390
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 60642-5-I
ROBERT LEWIS MARTIN, JR., ) PUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. ) FILED: April 13, 2009
Ellington, J. -- An indivisible plea of guilty does not prevent a double jeopardy
challenge based on the same offense theory where the violation is clear from the
record and was not otherwise waived.1 Robert Martin was convicted of both attempted
rape in the third degree and second degree assault. These convictions constituted the
same offense. We remand for vacation of the attempted rape conviction. We
Martin, D.S., and A.A. all rented rooms in the same boarding house. On
September 11, 2006, D.S. and Martin had an argument. D.S. went into her room to use
the telephone. Martin broke into the room yelling, took the phone from her, and hung it
1 In reaching this conclusion, we must respectfully disagree with the recent
decision of Division Two of this court in State v. Amos, 147 Wn. App. 217, 195 P.3d
up. D.S. was able to get to the phone, and called 911. Martin again took the phone
and threw it. He then pinned D.S.'s arms above her head, untied her pants, and tried to
pull them down.
Hearing D.S. screaming, Martin's brother entered the room and pulled Martin
away from D.S. Martin told his brother, "Let's do her. Let's do her now and get it over
with."2 Martin asked D.S., "Do you want this to be your last day on the planet?"3
Martin eventually left the residence. D.S. called A.A. and asked her to come
home. After A.A. arrived, Martin returned. A.A. confronted Martin and told him to
leave. Martin told A.A., "[C]all the cops again, bitch, and you'll die."4 As Martin left, he
told his brother, "Man, they'll be fucking dead."5
Martin was charged with one count of attempted second degree rape, one count
of attempted indecent liberties, and two counts of felony harassment. Pursuant to
negotiations, the State agreed to amend the charges to one count of second degree
assault and two counts of felony harassment, for which the State would recommend
concurrent sentences, and one misdemeanor count, attempted rape in the third
degree, which the State would recommend be suspended subject to, among other
conditions, a sexual deviancy evaluation, compliance with all recommended treatment,
and registration as a sex offender. Martin entered a plea to the amended charges, and
the court imposed sentence consistent with the State's recommendation.
2 Clerk's Papers at 3.
Martin appeals. He argues that his convictions for second degree assault and
attempted third degree rape violate prohibitions against double jeopardy because they
are the same offense, and that the sentence for attempted third degree rape must be
The proper interpretation and application of the double jeopardy clause is a
question of law. Review is de novo.6
In a single proceeding, the State may bring multiple charges arising from the
same criminal conduct.7 However, state and federal constitutional protections against
double jeopardy prohibit multiple punishments for the same offense.8 Where a
defendant's act supports charges under two criminal statutes, the crimes constitute the
same offense if, as Martin contends here, they are the same in both fact and law.9
The first question is whether Martin's double jeopardy challenge survives his
plea. A guilty plea waives even constitutional violations occurring before the plea,
unless the violation involves the government's power to prosecute.10 The State
contends Martin's double jeopardy argument is an improper attempt to challenge only a
6 State v. Womac, 160 Wn.2d 643, 649, 160 P.3d 40 (2007).
7 State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765, 770, 108 P.3d 753 (2005).
8 State v. Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d 413, 422, 662 P.2d 853 (1983) (quoting Albernaz
v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344, 101 S. Ct. 1137, 67 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1981)); Wash.
Const. art. I, § 9 ("No person shall be . . . twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.");
U.S. Const. amend. V (same).
9 State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 777, 888 P.2d 155 (1995).
10 Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 63 n.2, 96 S. Ct. 241, 46 L. Ed. 2d 195
portion of an indivisible plea agreement.
The State's argument principally derives from State v. Turley11 and In re Personal
Restraint of Shale.12 Turley defines a plea agreement as indivisible where a defendant
pleads guilty to multiple counts or charges at the same time, in the same proceeding,
and in the same document.13 Martin concedes his plea agreement was indivisible. Such
an agreement must be enforced as a whole.14 The defendant may seek to withdraw the
entire plea, but may not challenge only a part of the agreement.15 In effect, the State
argues that an indivisible plea agreement waives double jeopardy challenges unless all
the resulting convictions violate double jeopardy.
In Shale, which was decided in May 2007, eight justices considered a collateral
attack on double jeopardy grounds to certain convictions entered pursuant to an
indivisible plea agreement. In the lead opinion, four justices relied upon Turley and
held that a double jeopardy challen ge to only part of the indivisible bargain would not
11 149 Wn.2d 395, 69 P.3d 338 (2003).
12 160 Wn.2d 489, 158 P.3d 588 (2007).
13 Turley, 149 Wn.2d at 400.
15 State v. Bisson, 156 Wn.2d 507, 519 -- 20, 130 P.3d 820 (2006).
16 Shale, 160 Wn.2d at 494. The four concurring justices took the view that
because Shale did not move to withdraw his pleas, the indivisibility of the plea
agreement was not determinative. Rather, the concurring justices held that any
collateral attack upon facially valid convictions had been waived by Shale when he
negotiated an agreement that preserved his eligibility for a certain sentence, thereby
generating the claimed double jeopardy violations. Id. at 502 (Madsen, J., concurring).
The State does not contend Martin waived his challenge by his conduct in the plea
Martin responds that the indivisibility of the plea is no obstacle after State v.
Knight,17 which was decided nine months after Shale.
In Knight, the defendant negotiated a plea to an amended information charging
conspiracy to commit second degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first degree
burglary, and murder in the second degree. The agreement required Knight to testify
truthfully against her co-conspirators and forfeit her car. As here, nothing in the
agreement addressed waiver of double jeopardy claims. The trial court accepted the
pleas and imposed sentence.
Knight appealed, claiming the two conspiracy counts constituted multiple
convictions for a single "unit of prosecution." The Court of Appeals agreed and vacated
the conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree burglary.
The Supreme Court granted review "to determine if a single conviction can be
vacated for a double jeopardy violation without rejecting an indivisible plea
agreement."18 The court noted that it is the conviction, not the plea, that violates
double jeopardy.19 Because Knight had kept her bargain,20 the court held that "the
indivisibility of the plea agreement has no bearing on our analysis."21
17 162 Wn.2d 806, 174 P.3d 1167 (2008).
18 Id. at 810.
19 Id. at 813.
20 Id. ("Knight fulfilled the terms of the plea agreement even as she attacked her
21 Id. The court does not say why fulfillment of the plea agreement affects the
relevance of indivisibility, or when an unfulfilled agreement might present itself for
Shale's lead opinion had treated the double jeopardy claim as an impermissible
challenge to part of an indivisible plea agreement. Without mentioning Shale, Knight
rejects that premise out of hand. Shale's two opinions, each signed by four justices,
announced no clear rule, whereas Knight was decided by a unanimous court. The lead
opinion in Shale has been overruled sub silentio.22
In State v. Amos,23 Division Two of this court recently held that Knight applies
only when the double jeopardy challenge rests on the unit of prosecution theory, not
the same offense theory. The court focused upon Knight's references to the
government's power to prosecute: "[C]laims which go to 'the very power of the State to
bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him' are not waived
by guilty pleas."24 Because the State may bring, and the jury may consider, multiple
charges based on the same offense without violating any of the defendant's rights, but
may file only one charge for each unit of prosecution, the Amos court reasoned that
double jeopardy challenges are waived by a plea unless they derive from violation of
the unit of prosecution.25
We are unable to agree. The State may bring multiple charges arising from the
same criminal conduct,26 but courts may not enter multiple convictions for the same
22 See Puget Mill Co. v. Kerry, 183 Wash. 542, 559, 49 P.2d 57 (1935) (insofar
as inconsistency exists between two opinions of the same court, the later one is held to
have overruled the earlier one).
23 147 Wn. App. 217, 195 P.3d 564 (2008).
24 Id. at 226 (alteration in original) (quoting Knight, 162 Wn.2d at 811).
25 Id. at 226 -- 27.
26 Freeman, 153 Wn.2d at 770.
offense without offending double jeopardy.27 Our review of the opinion in Knight
disinclines us to the view that the court intended its holding to apply only to unit of
prosecution claims. The court stated the issue broadly: "The single question facing the
court is whether a conviction entered subsequent to a plea agreement can be vacated
when that conviction violates double jeopardy."28 Nothing in the court's analysis was
premised upon what double jeopardy theory was invoked. And under the general rule
that a plea waives appeal even of constitutional violations occurring before the plea
(unless related to the plea itself or to the power of the government to prosecute),29 a
double jeopardy violation occurring only upon conviction, as is claimed here, is not
Further, the Knight court's references to the power of government to prosecute
are ringing echoes from celebrated cases -- cases which did not explore whether there
is a difference, for double jeopardy purposes, between the power to charge and the
right to obtain a conviction.30 One of those cases frames the double jeopardy issue in
27 Id.; see also In re Pers. Restraint of Butler, 24 Wn. App. 175, 178, 599 P.2d
1311 (1979) (double jeopardy not waived by plea to first degree assault and first
degree robbery arising out of the same facts).
28 Knight, 162 Wn.2d at 811.
29 See Menna, 423 U.S. at 63 n.2.
30 Knight, 162 Wn.2d at 811; see, e.g., Menna, 423 U.S. at 62 (second
indictment for the same crime); Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30, 94 S. Ct. 2098, 40
L. Ed. 2d 628 (1974) (second indictment for additional charges arising out of the same
facts) (distinction of double jeopardy protection is that it prevents a trial); United States
v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 576 -- 77, 109 S. Ct. 757, 102 L. Ed. 2d 927 (1989) (Menna and
Blackledge not applicable because defendants' same unit of prosecution double
jeopardy claim could not be resolved without expanding the record). We have found no
cases supplying a rationale for distinguishing among theories of double jeopardy
terms not of the State's power to prosecute but the court's power to enter the conviction
or impose a sentence.31 We thus do not believe these rhetorical borrowings were
meant to limit the court's holding.32
Like Knight, Martin does not seek to withdraw his plea on the relevant count, and
whether the plea is indivisible under Turley is therefore not pertinent.33
The State seeks to distinguish Knight on its facts, focusing on the discussion of
fulfillment of the plea bargain. Martin's plea agreement allowed the State to
recommend sex offender registration and treatment conditions arguably not available
absent conviction for a sex offense.34 The State contends Martin's double jeopardy
challenge to the sex offense therefore leaves his obligations under the plea agreement
But the court held that Knight met her obligations when she entered her plea.35
Her promises to engage in certain affirmative conduct thereafter (testify against co-
31 Broce, 488 U.S. at 569 ("If the [plea was both counseled and voluntary], then
the conviction and the plea, as a general rule, foreclose the collateral attack. There are
exceptions where on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the
conviction or impose the sentence.").
32 The Amos court suggests that permitting the challenge would reward
defendants for negotiating a constitutionally faulty plea. See Amos, 147 Wn. App. at
227. While we share these concerns, we observe that the charging decision is vested
in the prosecutor, the plea requires agreement of the prosecutor, and the plea
agreement can provide for waiver of any double jeopardy violations. See Freeman,
153 Wn.2d at 779. Such circumstances might, however, support a waiver analysis like
that made by the concurring justices in Shale. As indicated above, no such argument is
33 See Knight, 162 Wn.2d at 813.
34 At oral argument, defense counsel stated that except for the registration
requirement, all the conditions would be permissible as terms of sentence on remand.
35 Id. at 813.
conspirators and forfeit her car) were not discussed. The court focused not on the
plea, but on the conviction: "Correctly understood, the plea agreement has no bearing
on the ability of the court to vacate a conviction entered pursuant to the guilty plea
itself, because the plea itself need not be disturbed."36
We are therefore unable to see how Martin's plea agreement leaves him with
unfulfilled obligations preventing a double jeopardy challenge. He entered his plea.
Under Knight, no more is required.
We conclude that Knight controls our analysis, and Martin may bring his double
We now return to Martin's argument that second degree assault and attempted
third degree rape constitute the same offense.
The Washington Supreme Court set forth a three part test for determining
whether the legislature intended multiple punishments arising from the same criminal
conduct. Courts first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the
criminal statutes involved.37 Where, as here, the relevant statutes do not expressly
disclose the legislative intent,38 courts ask if the crimes are the same in law and in fact
36 Id. at 812.
37 State v. Kier, 164 Wn.2d 798, 803 -- 04, 194 P.3d 212 (2008).
38 None of the relevant statutes addresses whether multiple convictions for a
single act of assault with intent to rape have been authorized. This is in contrast to
statutes such as RCW 9A.52.050, which expressly authorizes cumulative punishment
for crimes committed during the commission of a burglary. The State argues that the
statutory organization and different purposes behind each statute suggest a legislative
intent to separately punish second degree assault and attempted third degree rape.
This is too weak an indicator of legislative intent for double jeopardy purposes. See
State v. Johnson, 92 Wn.2d 671, 680, 600 P.2d 1249 (1979), overruled in part on other
(also known as the Blockburger test).39 Offenses are the same in fact when they arise
from the same act or transaction.40 They are the same in law when proof of one
offense would also prove the other.41 If applicable, the merger doctrine may help
determine legislative intent, where the degree of one offense is elevated by conduct
constituting a separate offense.42
As charged, second degree assault requires proof of intentional assault and the
intent to commit a felony (in this case, rape).43 Also as charged, attempted third degree
rape requires proof that (1) with intent to commit the crime of rape, (2) the defendant
took a substantial step toward (3) having sexual intercourse (4) with a person to whom
he was not married (5) where the person did not consent to the intercourse and (6) the
lack of consent was clearly expressed by words or conduct.44
The State compares the elements of each crime and argues the two offenses are
not the same in law. But where one crime is an anticipatory offense and another crime
is both charged separately and used as the basis for the attempt charge, an abstract
grounds, State v. Sweet, 138 Wn.2d 466, 980 P.2d 1223 (1999) (kidnapping and
assault merge with first degree rape where they were part of the perpetration of the
rape and did not have an independent purpose or effect).
39 Kier, 164 Wn.2d at 804 (citing State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 777 -- 78, 888
P.2d 155 (1995); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L.
Ed. 306 (1932)).
40 Calle, 125 Wn.2d at 777 -- 78.
41 Id. at 777.
42 Kier, 164 Wn.2d at 804.
43 RCW 9A.36.021(1)(e); 11 Washington Practice: Washington Pattern Jury
Instructions: Criminal, 35.11, at 467 (3rd ed. 2008) (WPIC).
44 RCW 9A.44.060(1)(a), .010(7); RCW 9A.28.020(1); 11 WPlC 42.02, at 766;
11A WPIC 100.02, at 386.
comparison of elements is not enough. As the court observed in In re Personal
Restraint of Orange:
The Valentine court's reluctance to look at the facts used to prove
the statutory elements exposes a misconception about the Blockburger
test. That the test has been alternatively called the "same elements" and
the "same evidence" test underscores that the Blockburger test requires
the court to determine "whether each provision requires proof of a fact
which the other does not.". . . Unless the abstract term "substantial step"
is given a factual definition, there is simply no way to assess whether
attempted murder requires proof of a fact not required in proving the
assault. The Valentine court's belief that the "substantial step" element
had to remain a generic term for purposes of the "same elements" test
ignores the reality that the term "substantial step" is a placeholder in the
attempt statute, having no meaning with respect to any particular crime
and acquiring meaning only from the facts of each case.
In Orange, the two charges were based on the same shot directed at the same
victim, and the evidence required to support the conviction for first degree attempted
murder was sufficient to convict Orange of first degree assault.46 Under the
Blockburger test, the crimes of first degree attempted murder (by taking the substantial
step of shooting at victim) and first degree assault (committed with a firearm) were the
same in fact and in law.47
Here, the crimes of second degree assault and attempted third degree rape (by
taking the substantial step of assaulting D.S. with intent to rape her) are the same in
fact and law.
The two charges were predicated on the same conduct: Martin's assault with
45 152 Wn.2d 795, 818, 100 P.3d 291 (2004) (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at
304) (citing State v. Valentine, 108 Wn. App. 24, 29 P.3d 42 (2001)).
46 Id. at 820.
intent to rape D.S.48 The assault was the substantial step towards the rape; there was
48 The double jeopardy violation must be clear from the record presented on
appeal, or else be waived. Knight, 162 Wn.2d at 811. Here, Martin stipulated to the
facts as described in the certification for determination of probable cause.
no independent purpose. The evidence required to support Martin's conviction for
attempted third degree rape was the same evidence used to convict him of second
degree assault. Under the Blockburger test, the two crimes were the same offense.
Martin's convictions for second degree assault and attempted third degree rape
violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The remedy is vacation
of the lesser offense(here, attempted third degree rape).49
Finally, Martin argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his
motion to appoint substitute counsel. At his sentencing hearing, Martin was scheduled
for sentencing both in this matter and in an unrelated case involving a gun charge.
Martin's attorneys in this case informed the court that he desired to withdraw his plea.
The court suggested it would proceed to sentencing on the gun charge and set this
matter over. When the State interjected that misgivings did not constitute a basis for
plea withdrawal, Martin's attorney stated:
I guess my concern is that, if there is more to the reason for Mr.
Martin's desire to withdraw his plea, it seems that part of his concerns
may stem from the things that [prior counsel] and I did. And it seems
more appropriate for a different attorney to explore with Mr. Martin the
potential grounds that he may have for wanting to withdraw his plea. . . .
But, again, if the court is going to entertain, I guess, receiving more
information about this, it seems to me appropriate for him to receive new
counsel on my cause number so that they can explore better, I suppose,
or more thoroughly, the other grounds that he may have. I would also ask
the Court to do sentencing on both of these matters at the same time,
49 State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252, 265, 149 P.3d 646 (2006). Regardless of
which offense forms part of the proof of the other and which offense carries the lesser
seriousness level and intent requirement, the lesser crime for double jeopardy
purposes is the conviction that carries the lesser punishment. Id. at 266 -- 69. The
parties agree that attempted third degree rape is the lesser offense here.
since that would allow for the presumption that they would be run
The court asked Martin to decide what he wanted to do. After conferring with
Martin, his attorney informed the court that Martin wanted to proceed with sentencing,
which the court did. Martin never pursued withdrawal of his plea or a change of
counsel. The record thus reflects that Martin abandoned his objections. Further, the
court did not abuse its discretion in handling the situation.51 We have refused to adopt
a rule mandating the appointment of substitute counsel simply because a defendant
wishes to assert ineffective assistance.52 This is all Martin did here.
We remand for vacation of the conviction for attempted rape in the third degree
and otherwise affirm.
50 Report of Proceedings (Aug. 31, 2007) at 5 -- 6.
51 State v. Stark, 48 Wn. App. 245, 252, 738 P.2d 684 (1987) (trial court's
determination of whether defendant's dissatisfaction with court appointed counsel
warrants appointment of substitute counsel will not be overturned on appeal absent
abuse of discretion).
52 Id. at 253.