IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 81546-6-I ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION CARMONA-CRUZ, AMOS, ) DOB: 03/26/1975, ) ) Appellant. ) BOWMAN, J. — Amos Carmona-Cruz1 appeals his conviction for felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. He contends the trial court erred by relying on a prior conviction for vehicular assault while under the influence of alcohol as a predicate offense because his plea to that charge was not voluntary. In the alternative, Carmona-Cruz argues the State could not prove a court “convicted” him of the prior vehicular assault under RCW 46.61.502(6)(b)(ii) without a valid judgment and sentence. We affirm his conviction but remand to the trial court to strike the Department of Corrections (DOC) supervision fees from the judgment and sentence. 1 We note that the charging information and both parties’ briefs on appeal hyphenate Carmona-Cruz’s name. But below, defense counsel did not hyphenate his name and referred to the defendant in his briefing and in open court as “Mr. Carmona.” We hyphenate Carmona- Cruz’s name in the caption in accordance with RAP 3.4 and throughout the opinion to be consistent with the briefing. However, we recognize the inconsistency, and intend no disrespect. No. 81546-6-I/2 FACTS In 2012, Carmona-Cruz crashed his car while driving under the influence of alcohol, seriously injuring his passenger. The State charged him with one count of vehicular assault. Carmona-Cruz applied for a public defender. The Office of Public Defense (OPD) determined he was eligible for appointment of an attorney but found him financially able to pay part of the cost. On September 3, 2013, Carmona-Cruz appeared for arraignment with an interpreter. He did not want to pay for a lawyer and told the public defender he wanted to represent himself. The public defender asked the court to continue the arraignment so Carmona-Cruz could “retain counsel or . . . reconsider his position with regard to [OPD].” The court told Carmona-Cruz: Since you don’t have an attorney today, I’m more than willing to set the matter over for two weeks or one week to allow you time to hire an attorney of your own choice. If you find you cannot afford to hire an attorney of your own choice, you may choose to revisit the question of signing a promissory note or you can represent yourself, which I don’t recommend, because you will be held to the same standards of an experienced licensed lawyer and held to abide by the same procedural court rules as your case is being handled. The court then asked Carmona-Cruz, “How would you like to proceed today.” He responded, “I don’t want to get an attorney. I want to represent myself and I would like this to be over already.” A few minutes later, the court conducted a more thorough colloquy with Carmona-Cruz about self-representation to “make sure that you know what you’re getting into when you choose to represent yourself.” The court …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals