Find Court Cases > State Of Washington, Respondent V. Robert C. Warman, Appellant

State Of Washington, Respondent V. Robert C. Warman, Appellant

Case Date: 05/10/2012

 
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).


Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number: 41914-9
Title of Case: State Of Washington, Respondent V. Robert C. Warman, Appellant
File Date: 05/10/2012

SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Mason County Superior Court
Docket No: 10-1-00356-8
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 03/14/2011
Judge signing: Honorable Amber L Finlay

JUDGES
------
Authored byChristine Quinn-Brintnall
Concurring:David H. Armstrong
Joel Penoyar

COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------

Counsel for Appellant(s)
 Thomas Edward Doyle  
 Attorney at Law
 Po Box 510
 Hansville, WA, 98340-0510

Counsel for Respondent(s)
 Timothy J. Higgs  
 Mason Co Pros Aty Office
 Po Box 639
 Shelton, WA, 98584-0639
			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                       DIVISION  II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                             No.  41914-9-II

                             Respondent,

       v.

ROBERT C. WARMAN,                                          UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                             Appellant.

       Quinn-Brintnall, J.   --   Robert Warman appeals from one of the sentencing conditions 

imposed by the trial court following his convictions for felony driving under the influence of 

intoxicants (DUI) and for first degree driving while license suspended.  Pro se, Warman claims 

that his license had been reinstated and that he was denied his right to counsel during 

interrogation.  Finding no error, we affirm.1

       On November 10, 2010, Washington State Patrol Trooper Toby Haapala stopped a truck 

that was swerving in and out of its lane of travel.  He noticed that the truck's driver, Warman, 

smelled of alcohol, had a flushed face and watery eyes.  He arrested Warman for DUI.  He 

advised Warman of his constitutional rights, but Warman did not respond.  Warman refused to 

1 A commissioner of this court initially considered Warman's appeal as a motion on the merits 
under RAP 18.14 and then transferred it to a panel of judges. 

No. 41914-9-II

submit to a breath test, so Haapala obtained a search warrant for a blood sample, took Warman to 

the hospital, and had a technician draw Warman's blood.  That blood sample contained 0.31 

grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters.  Haapala checked Warman's driver's license status and 

learned that Warman's license was suspended and that Warman had four prior DUI convictions.  

       The State charged Warman with felony DUI, because of his four prior convictions, and 

with first degree driving while license suspended.  RCW 46.61.502(1); RCW 46.20.3426(1)(a).  

The jury found him guilty as charged.  The court sentenced him to 43 months of confinement, to 

be followed by 12 months of community custody.  Among the conditions of community custody 

imposed was the following:

       The defendant shall participate in the GIR +/or MRT +/or Victim Awareness 
       Education Program.

Clerk's Papers at 18.2

       Warman appeals this condition, arguing that it does not relate to the circumstances of his 

crime and so cannot be imposed as a crime-related prohibition under RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f).  

State v. Jones, 118 Wn. App. 199, 207-08, 76 P.3d 258 (2003).  We review whether a community 

custody condition is crime-related for an abuse of discretion.  State v. Autrey, 136 Wn. App. 460, 

466-67, 150 P.3d 580 (2006).  Warman suggests that because his crimes did not have an 

identifiable victim, the requirement that he participate in one of the named programs was not 

crime-related.  But the fact that Warman's crimes had no identifiable victim does not mean that 

they had no victim at all.  All lawful motorists, and others on or near the road, are victims of those 

who drive while under the influence of intoxicants.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

2 Neither Warman nor the State provides any details as to these programs.  We assume that MRT 
means moral recognition therapy, but have no idea what GIR stands for.

                                               2 

No. 41914-9-II

imposing the community custody condition.

       In his statement of additional grounds,3 Warman asserts that his driver's license had been 

reinstated on October 2, 2010, so he could not have been guilty of driving while license 

suspended on November 10, 2010.  But he presents no evidence to support his assertion, and his 

assertion is contrary to the evidence presented at trial.  He also asserts that he was denied his right 

to consult an attorney before the blood sample was drawn.  But he has no such right.  State v. 

Schulze, 116 Wn.2d 154, 160-61, 804 P.2d 566 (1991).

       Accordingly, we affirm Warman's judgment and sentence in all respects.

       A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it 

is so ordered.

                                                 QUINN-BRINTNALL, J.
We concur:

ARMSTRONG, J.

PENOYAR, C.J.

3 RAP 10.10.
                                               3