State v. Watson
The State of Washington v. Eric Albert Watson
Attorneys
Rebecca W. Bouchey, for petitioner., Gerald A. Horne, Prosecuting Attorney, P. Grace Kingman, Deputy, and Levi Larson, Legal Intern, for respondent.
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
¶1 â Eric Watson pleaded guilty to 10 counts of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court exerted undue pressure on him to plead guilty, rendering his plea involuntary. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Watson, noted at 131 Wn. App. 1027 (2006). We grant review and also affirm.
¶2 The State charged Watson with 10 counts of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The day before Watsonâs trial was scheduled to begin, the parties appeared before the criminal presiding judge for a competency hearing. During the course of that hearing, Watson told the judge that at one point his attorney had considered a motion to suppress and that if that motion were not successful, Watson had the option of pleading guilty. The judge replied:
And, I really think you should take their offer. Itâs a calculated risk going to trial. I did defense work and I had clients that*164 wouldnât take the offer and went to trial and ended up with double the jail time and I would come back and tell them, donât blame me, youâre the one that wanted to go to trial.
So, I think you need to seriously think about the next trial date and whether you want to take the risk of going to trial.
Report of Proceedings (Nov. 9, 2004) at 8. The judge ruled that there was a personality conflict between Watson and his attorney but no competence issue.
¶3 Another attorney substituted for Watsonâs counsel, and Watsonâs trial was continued two months to enable new counsel to prepare. A little over a month later, after discussing the case with his new attorney, Watson decided to plead guilty. He completed a statement indicating that he understood the nature of the charges against him and the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. And Watsonâs signed statement said that he was making his plea âfreely and voluntarilyâ without threat or promise. Clerkâs Papers at 10.
¶4 At the plea hearing before a different judge, defense counsel told the court that he had carefully gone over the plea statement with Watson, who had acknowledged that he wanted to plead guilty. And in colloquy Watson told the court that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily. The court accepted Watsonâs plea, finding it to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
¶5 Watson asserted on appeal that his plea was involuntary because the criminal presiding judge had exerted undue pressure on him to plead guilty by threatening him with âdouble the jail time.â The Court of Appeals determined there was no threat. And though the court noted that the judgeâs remark that Watson should âtake their offerâ was inappropriate, it held that the remark did not compel Watson to plead guilty and that the record showed his later-entered guilty plea was not coerced or involuntary. The court therefore affirmed Watsonâs convictions.
¶6 Watson again argues that his plea was coerced by the criminal presiding judge. See Brady v. United States, 397
f 7 Ordinarily, this court would simply deny review of a routine Court of Appeals opinion with which we agree. But here we grant review to emphasize that the criminal presiding judgeâs remarks were wholly inappropriate. While the judge made no threat to impose âdouble jail time,â as Watson claims, she did advise Watson to âtake [the Stateâs plea] offer.â Trial judges are to refrain from offering defendants any advice, direct or implied, about the wisdom of pleading guilty.
¶8 The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.