Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                       DIVISION  II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                             No.  42030-9-II

                             Respondent,

       v.

STEVEN MCDOUGAL RIGGS,                                     UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                             Appellant.

       Hunt, J.  --  Steven  McDougal  Riggs  appeals his guilty plea conviction for unlawful 

solicitation to possess marijuana.  He argues that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and 

voluntary.  Pro se, he asserts that he was coerced into pleading guilty.  We affirm.

                                            FACTS

       The State initially charged Riggs with unlawful manufacture of marijuana, a felony.  As a 

result of a plea agreement, the State amended its charge to unlawful solicitation to possess 

marijuana, a gross misdemeanor.  Riggs signed a statement on plea of guilty, which informed him 

that (1) the maximum sentence he faced was 365 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, and (2) the State 

would ask for a sentence of 365 days in jail with 322 days suspended and the remaining 43 days 

converted to community service, 2 years of probation, payment of legal financial obligations, and 

limitations on his behaviors involving controlled substances.

       During  the plea colloquy with the court, Riggs stated that his attorney had  read the  

No.  42030-9-II

statement on plea of guilty to him and that he understood it.  The following exchange then 

occurred:

              THE COURT:  The consequences of pleading guilty, this is a 
       misdemeanor; it carries with it a maximum of 365 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.  
       The prosecutor in this case is going to recommend 365 days with 322 suspended, 
       converting the 43 days to 344 hours of community service, $500 crime victim fee, 
       $200 DAC recoupment, $200 court costs, $200 fine.
              . . . Do you understand that to be the recommendation of the prosecutor?
              THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.
              THE COURT:  And do you understand that the sentencing judge has no 
       obligation to follow that recommendation but can impose any sentence up to the 
       maximum of 365 days.
              THE DEFENDANT:  Yes, ma'am.

Verbatim Transcript of Proceedings (Mar. 10, 2011) at 34.  The court accepted Riggs' Alford1

plea and later sentenced him consistent with the State's recommendation.  Riggs appeals.

                                          ANALYSIS

       Riggs argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was mistakenly 

advised about the direct consequences of his plea.  State v. Mendoza, 157 Wn.2d 582, 591, 141 

P.3d 49 (2006).  More specifically, he asserts that, because the plea court referred to his crime as 

a  "misdemeanor" rather than as a "gross misdemeanor," and because the form he signed is 

captioned "Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty (Misdemeanor)," he was mistakenly advised 

about a direct consequence of his plea.2  Riggs' challenge fails.

       The record shows, as Riggs' asserts, that the plea court misspoke when referring to the 

crime as a "misdemeanor" rather than a "gross misdemeanor" and that his statement on plea of 

1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).

2 Br. of Appellant at 4.
                                               2 

No.  42030-9-II

guilty form used the term  "misdemeanor."3   But the record also shows that both during the 

colloquy and on his plea form, Riggs was correctly advised about the direct consequences of his 

guilty plea to the reduced charge of unlawful solicitation to possess marijuana, namely a maximum 

sentence of one year in the county jail and a $5,000 fine.4  Former RCW 9A.20.021(2) (Laws of

2003, ch. 288, § 7).  Thus, although referring to the amended charge as a "misdemeanor," the 

plea  court correctly advised Riggs about  the consequences his  pleading guilty to a gross 

misdemeanor.  We hold, therefore, that Riggs fails to show that his plea was not knowing, 

voluntary, and intelligent, and that a manifest injustice supports a withdrawal of his plea.  State v. 

Branch, 129 Wn.2d 635, 641, 919 P.2d 1228 (1996).

       In his statement of additional grounds, Riggs asserts that he was coerced into pleading 

guilty by his medical condition, his attorney's frequent requests for continuance, and difficulty in 

contacting his attorney.  The record, however, does not support this assertion.  In his statement of 

plea of guilty and in his plea colloquy, Riggs expressly denied having been coerced into pleading 

3 Br. of Appellant at 6.

4 In contrast, no place in the record shows that Riggs was incorrectly advised that he was subject 
to the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor, 90 days in the county jail and a $1,000 fine.  Former 
RCW 9A.20.021(3).
                                               3 

No.  42030-9-II

guilty.  Again, he fails to present any grounds for withdrawing his guilty plea.

       We affirm.

       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.

                                                 Hunt, J.
We concur:

Penoyar, C.J.

Quinn-Brintnall, J.

                                               4