State v. McFarland
127 Wash. 2d 322, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge a warrantless arrest cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal if the trial record is insufficient to establish prejudice. The proper vehicle for such claims requiring evidence outside the trial record is a personal restraint petition.
Facts:
- Facts of State v. McFarland:
- On April 23, 1990, two masked men with sawed-off shotguns forced their way into the home of Alan Rogers and his family.
- One man assaulted Rogers while demanding money, after which Rogers shot and killed the man, later identified as Patrick Flick.
- The second, larger assailant fled the scene; no witnesses saw his face.
- The following day, police arrested James McFarland without a warrant, based on his physical description matching the larger assailant, his association with Flick, and his car leaking oil like a vehicle seen near the crime scene.
- After his arrest, McFarland made statements to police about his activities with Flick on the night of the crime.
- Facts of State v. Fisher:
- On March 14, 1991, undercover officer Michael Alphin purchased what appeared to be rock cocaine from Stonya Connor in an apartment, after being directed by Michael Fisher to do so.
- Alphin paid with a marked $20 bill and then signaled a nearby arrest team.
- The arrest team entered the apartment without a warrant, arrested Fisher and Connor, and a subsequent search of Connor revealed the marked bill and additional cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- McFarland Case: James McFarland was convicted by a jury in a Washington trial court of first-degree burglary, kidnapping, attempted robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm.
- McFarland appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Two, where he raised his warrantless arrest and ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the first time.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding the claim was waived on direct appeal but could be raised in a personal restraint petition.
- Fisher Case: Michael Fisher was convicted by a jury in a Washington trial court of delivery and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.
- Fisher appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, challenging his warrantless arrest and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but remanded the case to the trial court for a suppression hearing to develop the record on the arrest issue.
- The Washington Supreme Court accepted review of both cases and consolidated them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a defendant, for the first time on appeal, successfully challenge a warrantless arrest through a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record is insufficient to determine whether a motion to suppress evidence would have been granted?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No. A defendant may not successfully challenge a warrantless arrest for the first time on appeal through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if the record is insufficient to establish prejudice. An appellate court will generally not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal unless it is a 'manifest error affecting a constitutional right.' To prove a manifest error, the defendant must show actual prejudice from the trial record. Here, because no motion to suppress was made, the record is undeveloped as to whether such a motion would have been granted, making a showing of prejudice impossible. Likewise, to prove ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington test, a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice. The defendants failed both prongs because the record does not overcome the strong presumption of effective counsel, and it does not establish a reasonable probability that a suppression motion would have succeeded. The court expressly overruled State v. Tarica's holding that failure to file a suppression motion is per se deficient performance.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the proper procedural channel for ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are dependent on facts outside the trial record. It establishes that a direct appeal is an inappropriate vehicle for such claims because appellate courts are limited to the existing record and cannot speculate on undeveloped factual issues, such as a lawyer's strategy or the likely outcome of a hearing that never occurred. By directing these claims to a personal restraint petition (PRP), which allows for evidentiary hearings, the court preserves the finality of trial verdicts and ensures that fact-dependent constitutional claims are adjudicated in a forum equipped to handle them. This reinforces the distinction between appellate review and collateral attack.
