FILED JANUARY 30, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 36019-9-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) JOSE ENRIQUE GONZALEZ PALOMARES, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) KORSMO, J. — Jose Gonzalez Palomares1 appeals from his conviction for first degree child rape, challenging the timeliness of his trial, the propriety of a mistrial, and the use at trial of text messages his wife shared with police, among other contentions. We affirm. FACTS At age 14, NRE reported that she had been the victim of a rape five or six years earlier. She accused Mr. Gonzales, who was now 22, of raping her in a closet while his mother was babysitting NRE. After interviewing NRE, law enforcement also talked with Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales voluntarily spoke with law enforcement one afternoon, then 1 Appellant’s counsel refers to his client by the last name of Gonzalez, as did the parties at trial, so we also will use that appellation. No. 36019-9-III State v. Gonzalez Palomares went to work to pick up his paycheck. He failed to return to work for his dinnertime shift. Mr. Gonzales texted his wife that the past was catching up to him, urged her to take care of their unborn child, he was sorry, and he needed to leave.2 His wife, CG, reported to police that Gonzales was missing and shared the text messages with them. The investigating officer took photos of the text messages. Law enforcement started looking for Mr. Gonzales as a missing person. The prosecutor also filed charges and obtained an arrest warrant. Mr. Gonzales was soon apprehended and apparently3 was arraigned on September 25, 2017. Trial apparently was scheduled for November 7, 2017, with the court and parties recognizing November 27 as the final day of the 60-day speedy trial period.4 Trial was continued to November 28 on the State’s motion; the continuance order recognized December 28 as the final day of the new speedy trial period. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 31. For reasons not related by our record, trial was then rescheduled before Judge Culp on December 7. 2 Defendant and his wife had been married approximately four months at the time of his disappearance. 3 Information concerning the arraignment and initial trial setting is not included in our clerk’s papers, so this information is drawn from trial court briefing of the parties. 4 The record does indicate that Mr. Gonzalez remained in custody. Presumably, the November 27 date reflected the impact of the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. November 24 would have been the sixtieth day from arraignment. 2 No. 36019-9-III State v. Gonzalez Palomares At the December 6, 2017, pretrial hearing, Judge Culp continued the trial on the court’s own motion. Hospice officials had advised that the judge’s brother’s death was imminent and Judge Culp needed to leave town to pay his final visit. Report of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals