Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two June 26, 2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II In the Matter of the No. 49799-9-II Personal Restraint Petition of STEPHANIE MARELDA SALYERS, Petitioner. UNPUBLISHED OPINION PENOYAR, J.* — In 2016, Stephanie Salyers entered an Alford1 plea to one count of first degree custodial interference.2 She now argues in a personal restraint petition (PRP) that she should be permitted to withdraw her plea because (1) it lacks a factual basis, (2) her counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he misadvised her of a collateral consequence of the plea and failed to adequately investigate her case, (3) she was not released from jail under CrR 3.2, and (4) she has shown egregious governmental misconduct. Because (1) Salyers’s plea has a factual basis, (2) she fails to show ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) she waived her CrR 3.2 argument, and * Judge Joel M. Penoyar is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeals pursuant to CAR 21(c). 1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970). 2 RCW 9A.40.060(1)(a). No. 49799-9-II (4) she has not shown that the misconduct she alleges resulted in actual and substantial prejudice, we deny Salyers’s PRP. FACTS I. BACKGROUND3 On February 19, at a shelter care hearing, a juvenile court placed Salyers’s three children in state custody. Two days later, police responded to a report that Salyers had found her children and removed them from state custody in violation of the shelter care orders. The family from whose home Salyers had taken her children reported that she had come to their home, claimed she was allowed to visit the children, and then, when she was unsupervised, fled with the children through a bedroom window. Later in the day on February 21, police located Salyers and arrested her for kidnapping. At the time of her arrest, Salyers had left her children at a friend’s home while Salyers and her friend gathered belongings from Salyers’s home. Police questioned Salyers’s friend, who said that Salyers intended to leave the area with her children. Salyers maintained her innocence, stating that she had never been given paperwork saying that she could not have her children. Incident reports and a probable cause statement that was not sworn to “under penalty of perjury” documented that Salyers had been present at the shelter care hearing and also that shelter care orders had been entered.4 The shelter care orders stated that 3 The facts in sections I and II are from incident reports and a probable cause declaration that Salyers received as discovery on March 11, the custody orders from the February 19 hearing, Salyers’s statement on plea of guilty and associated documents, her judgment and sentence, and the supplemental record provided by Salyers. 4 One incident report incorrectly states that a police officer, Detective Sandra Aldridge, was present at the shelter care hearing. Subsequent reports correct this statement and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals