FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
2015 JAN 13 MI
16
STATE OF WASHINGTON
13Y-
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF I IN ON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45119 -1 - II
Respondent,
v.
RAYNARD SANTOS CHARGUALAF, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
WoRSwICK, P. J. — Raynard Santos Chargualaf appeals the trial court' s restitution order.
Chargualaf argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel
refused to agree to a continuance after the late disclosure of evidence. This court disagrees and
affirms. 1
FACTS
A jury found Chargualaf guilty of one count of first degree burglary, one count of first
degree robbery, four counts of first degree kidnapping, and one count of unlawful possession of a
firearm.2 On November 5, 2012, the trial court held a restitution hearing. During the hearing,
1 A commissioner of this court initially heard this appeal as a motion on the merits under RAP
18. 14 and then transferred it to a panel of judges.
2
Chargualaf appealed his conviction in cause number 43502 -1 - II (filed May 6, 2014). This
court affirmed his conviction and his petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied.
No. 45119 -1 - II
the State moved to introduce evidence compiled by the victim to support her valuation of the
stolen or damaged items. Chargualaf had not seen the evidence prior to the hearing.
Defense counsel objected to the admission of the evidence on the basis of late disclosure.
The trial court declined to exclude the evidence, but stated that it would grant a continuance if
requested by defense counsel. Defense counsel declined the continuance and proceeded with the
restitution hearing. The victim testified to the value of the stolen items and, in part, relied on the
admitted evidence to support her valuation of the items. She testified that she had received an
insurance payout of $1, 700. Chargualaf and his codefendants argued that the amount of
restitution should not exceed the valuation by the insurance company and that there was no way
to know the accuracy of the victim' s valuation. The trial court disagreed and ordered restitution
in the amount requested by the victim: $ 26, 124. 02.
ANALYSIS
Chargualaf appeals arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his
defense counsel did not agree to a continuance. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim the defendant must establish that ( 1) defense counsel' s performance was deficient
and ( 2) defense counsel' s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 ( 1984). Failure to establish
either prong is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700.
Our scrutiny of counsel' s performance is highly deferential. We strongly presume
reasonableness. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335, 899 P. 2d 1251 ( 1995). To establish
prejudice, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed
absent the deficient performance. State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 226, 743 P. 2d 816 ( 1987).
2
No. 45119 -1 - II
First, Chargualaf cannot demonstrate deficient performance. He argues that counsel' s
performance was deficient because, if counsel had agreed to the continuance, counsel would
have had additional time to find information to undermine the accuracy of the victim' s
information. But counsel was able to undermine the accuracy of the information without the
additional time. It was established that the information came from internet web sites and was not
for exactly the same items that had been stolen. Because defense counsel was able to attack the
accuracy of the information without a continuance, the decision not to agree to a continuance
was not unreasonable. Accordingly, Chargualafs ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.
Second, even if counsel' s performance was deficient, Chargualaf has not met his burden
to show prejudice. Although Chargualaf lists numerous things that defense counsel could have
done with additional time, he does not explain how those things would have changed the result
of the hearing. Additional time would not have resulted in the evidence being suppressed. And,
the potential inaccuracy of the valuation was pointed out to the trial court. It does not appear that
there would be a reasonable probability that the outcome of the hearing would have been
different if defense counsel had taken more time to find additional information to undermine the
accuracy of the evidence.
Chargualaf has failed to demonstrate that his counsel' s performance was deficient or
prejudicial. Because he cannot meet his burden to prove either prong of the Strickland test,
Chargualaf s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.
No. 45119 -1 - II
We affirm the restitution order.
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.
dwa'.
Worswick, P. J.
We concur:
Sutton, J.
4