FILED
MARCH 30, 2021
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 37123-9-III
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
MANUEL CARROSCO MENDOZA JR., )
)
Appellant. )
FEARING, J. — Manuel Mendoza appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of
a firearm. He asserts that his trial counsel performed ineffectively when cross-examining
at length two law enforcement officers about the initial responding officer’s exclusion of
another suspect as the one who carried a weapon in a backpack. We conclude that the
questioning was a legitimate trial strategy and affirm Mendoza’s conviction.
FACTS
We outline the facts now, but provide more details when outlining the testimony
of law enforcement officers that gives rise to the claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. On the evening of October 27, 2017, Yakima Police Sergeant Ritchie Fowler
responded to a report of a crime involving a gun at a Subway sandwich shop in Yakima.
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
As he neared the shop, he stopped a man who matched the description of the crime
suspect.
The detained individual gave Sergeant Ritchie Fowler permission to check his
backpack. Fowler felt the backpack and discerned what he believed to be a gun. As
Fowler attempted to seize the bag, the man threw the backpack at him and ran. Fowler
gave chase, but lost sight of the individual. Fowler opened the backpack and discovered
a 40-caliber pistol.
Later that night, another law enforcement officer discovered a Washington State
identification card belonging to Manuel Mendoza in the same vicinity. Sergeant Ritchie
Fowler identified Manuel Mendoza as the man who bore the backpack containing the
gun. During the course of the evening and before the apprehension of Mendoza, Fowler
ruled out a second suspect stopped by police as the individual who threw the backpack.
PROCEDURE
The State of Washington charged Manuel Mendoza with first degree unlawful
possession of a firearm. At trial, Mendoza relied on a theory of mistaken identity.
During cross-examination of two police officers, the officers testified that Sergeant
Ritchie Fowler informed them that the other suspect whom they had detained was the
wrong individual.
During trial, the prosecution first called Sergeant Ritchie Fowler to testify.
According to Sergeant Fowler, on October 27, 2017 at 7:30 p.m., he responded to a report
2
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
of a crime at the Subway shop on Yakima Avenue and First Street. Emergency dispatch
described the suspect as a white male wearing tennis shoes, basketball shorts, and a gray
sweatshirt with a West Coast Chopper logo. When Fowler responded to the scene, he
saw an individual matching the description of the suspect in an alley. Fowler stopped and
reversed his cruiser, but lost sight of the individual. Fowler entered and traversed the
alley. He again spotted the same individual walking near a motel. Because the person
matched the description given of the suspect, Sergeant Fowler blocked the individual’s
path, with his patrol car, between the motel and a laundromat. The individual also wore a
hat.
According to his trial testimony, an unaccompanied Sergeant Ritchie Fowler
exited his car, stopped the individual, and explained the purpose of his detaining the man.
The man stood two feet in front of Fowler. Sergeant Fowler told the individual that he
matched the description of the suspect seen leaving the scene of a crime at Subway.
Fowler told the individual to empty his pockets. The individual removed a cell phone,
among other objects. The individual wore a backpack, and Sergeant Fowler asked if he
could check the pack. The individual responded affirmatively, and Fowler felt the
backpack. Sergeant Fowler discerned a hard object that felt like a gun. Fowler grabbed
the top of the backpack in order to seize it. The individual removed the backpack from
his back and threw the backpack at Fowler. The man ran and Fowler pursued him. The
3
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
individual outran the backpack laden officer. Sergeant Fowler opened the backpack and
saw a semiautomatic 40-caliber pistol.
During trial, Sergeant Ritchie Fowler identified Manuel Mendoza as the individual
whom he confronted on the evening of October 27. Fowler testified that he recognized
him from their interaction between the laundromat and the motel.
Upon the suspect disappearing from sight, Sergeant Ritchie Fowler called for
additional officers and a K-9 dog to assist. The responding officers and Fowler traced the
direction that the individual had fled. While Fowler attempted to determine the
individual’s location, two officers discovered a Washington identification card across the
street from where Fowler had spoken with the suspect. The card belonged to Manuel
Mendoza.
On cross-examination of Sergeant Ritchie Fowler, defense counsel inquired as to
the lighting in the parking lot in which Sergeant Fowler confronted the suspect. Fowler
responded:
The whole area is lit up right there . . . . the Red Apple shines kind of
down on the—on the lot . . . I didn’t need any lighting.
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 183. Sergeant Fowler estimated that he observed the
individual that night for one to two minutes.
The State’s next witness, Yakima Police Officer Darius Williams, testified that he
responded, to the report of a crime. Williams thereafter received a communication from
4
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
Sergeant Ritchie Fowler that an individual, similar in description to the suspect of the
Subway crime, had run from him. Williams, located a block away, responded to Sergeant
Fowler’s location and saw him in pursuit of a male. Officer Williams unsuccessfully
attempted to block the suspect with his police cruiser. He saw the man briefly.
Officer Darius Williams followed the fleeing suspect eastbound as the individual
ran through business properties. Officer Cole then contacted Williams and informed him
that he had detained a suspect on North First Street. The State questioned Williams:
Q Okay. But that wasn’t the suspect that you were looking for, was
it?
A It was not the one we were following, no.
RP at 191.
During trial, Officer Darius Williams further testified that he returned to the area
where he had last seen the suspect fleeing from Sergeant Ritchie Fowler. He then found
a Washington State identification card on the ground. The identification card pictured
Manuel Mendoza. The card was clean and flat, despite its high traffic location, leading
Officer Williams to opine that the card had recently fallen to the ground.
On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Officer Darius Williams:
Q Officer Williams, when you first arrived you saw—suspect
running? —that correct?
A To assist—Sgt. Fowler?
Q Yeah.
A Yes, sir.
Q And—he was on—side of north Second Street?
A Yes.
5
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
Q Running through businesses?
A Uh-huh. Eastbound.
Q You didn’t get a real good look at—person that was running,
correct?
A Not—face, no.
Q Okay. Shortly after you saw this, you got a call about another—
subject they had found on—north First Street.
A On the 500 block of north First Street, yes, sir.
Q And, he was (inaudible) the—possible suspect at that time.
A Uh-huh.
Q But apparently somebody determined he was not the person you
were looking for.
A Yes. Sgt. Fowler and I—responded to the area and he [Fowler]
told us that that was not the suspect.
Q Okay. So that’s how it was determined, because Sgt. Fowler said
he was—
A Uh-huh.
Q —suspect. Okay.
This person was taken down and cuffed, (inaudible).
A Yes.
Q Okay.
RP at 195-96 (emphasis added).
During trial, the State next called K-9 Officer Robert Walters to testify. On
October 27, 2017, Officer Walters responded to a request from Sergeant Ritchie Fowler
to conduct a K-9 track. The dog did not track a suspect. Walters and Officer Darius
Williams decided to walk the area where Fowler reported a suspect had run. He and
Officer Williams went to this location and found an identification card. Walters repeated
Darius Williams’ testimony about the cleanliness of the card in a highly trafficked area.
The card listed the name of Manuel Mendoza. Officer Walters and Officer Williams
6
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
called Sergeant Ritchie Fowler to the scene, and he confirmed that the person on the
identification card matched his memory of the appearance of the suspect he had pursued.
On cross-examination, defense counsel inquired whether Officer Robert Walters
first contacted a suspect other than Manuel Mendoza. Officer Walters affirmed the
stopping of another person, and Walters elaborated:
A . . . Officer Cole called down that he had—thought he detained
someone that was matching the description from the initial call. Officer
Cole (inaudible) to detain him, and I showed up to that location first, in
order to detain this person and place him into handcuffs, yes, sir.
Q Okay. Ultimately it was determined that was not the person—
you were looking for.
A Correct. He was not involved in the initial dispatch call.
Q How did—how did you make that determination.
A To be honest I—I don’t note [that] in my report of how we
determined Mr. Willers was not involved. I don’t know if it was the
description, his location or it was from video surveillance from—the initial
dispatched crime. I don’t know off the top of my head.
Q Okay. When you had contact with him he was not exactly
cooperative was he?
A No, he was not.
Q In fact you thought he might be—(inaudible) to find a weapon on
him.
RP at 205-06.
Officer Robert Walters testified that he determined that this other suspect did not
have a firearm. Defense counsel then inquired if Officer Walters ever spoke with
Sergeant Ritchie Fowler when he had contacted the other suspect. Officer Walters
explained that Sergeant Fowler came to the location where Officer Cole detained the
7
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
other suspect and determined that he was not involved. Officer Walters acknowledged
that he never saw the suspect that Sergeant Ritchie Fowler initially pursued.
Defense counsel cross-examined Officer Robert Walters about his direct testimony
of the night being bright at 7:30 p.m. in late October. Counsel also questioned whether
Cobo, Officer Walters’s dog, had traced near the discovered identification card. Defense
counsel asked why the dog failed to trace the suspect by the scent of the owner on the
identification card. Officer Walters did not directly answer the question, but responded
that he directed Cobo to follow the scent of a human and not to discover objects.
During trial, the State also called Officer Casey Kim to testify. Officer Kim
assumed custody of the backpack and its contents, including the firearm. Kristin Drury,
the Yakima Police Department forensic lab supervisor, later testified that the firearm
from the backpack functioned. She discovered no fingerprints on the pistol. Drury
swabbed the firearm for a DNA sample, but did not send the swabs for testing.
At the conclusion of its case, the State recalled Sergeant Ritchie Fowler to testify.
Sergeant Fowler testified that, pursuant to his report, he now recalled that the person he
detained removed an identification card when he asked the man to empty his pockets.
Fowler confirmed that, when Officer Robert Walters and Officer Darius Williams
showed him the Washington identification card, he identified the individual as the person
who threw the backpack at him.
8
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, Manuel Mendoza claims that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel because counsel elicited testimony from two witnesses confirming that Sergeant
Ritchie Fowler ruled out another suspect as the one who bore the firearm in the backpack.
He argues that defense counsel lessened the State’s burden by introducing this testimony.
We disagree. The questioning of the officers served a legitimate trial strategy of showing
that other officers suspected another individual. The questioning also served to show that
Sergeant Ritchie Fowler, alone, turned officers away from that suspect and toward
Mendoza. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that
his attorney performed deficiently and this deficient performance prejudiced the
defendant. State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862, 215 P.3d 177 (2009). Failure to show
either prong of the test defeats the claim. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687,
104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). To show deficient performance, a defendant
must present facts which show that the performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness based on consideration of all the circumstances. State v. McFarland, 127
Wn.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). The defendant must overcome a strong
presumption that counsel’s performance was not deficient. State v. Nichols, 161 Wn.2d
1, 8, 162 P.3d 1122 (2007). A defendant shows prejudice when there is a reasonable
probability that, except for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 335.
9
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
This court will not find counsel’s conduct to be deficient if it constituted a
“legitimate trial strategy or tactics.” State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 863 (2009). When
the effect of defense counsel’s performance lowers the State’s burden of proof, counsel
has not engaged in a legitimate trial strategy. State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d at 869; State v.
Rodriguez, 121 Wn. App. 180, 187, 87 P.3d 1201 (2004). A fair assessment of attorney
performance requires that we eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight and evaluate the
conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
689 (1984).
Manuel Mendoza presented a defense theory of mistaken identity. In turn,
Mendoza focuses his argument of ineffective assistance of counsel on the testimony of
three witnesses. The State’s first witness, Sergeant Ritchie Fowler, testified on cross-
examination that, on the night of October 27, 2017, he spoke with the suspect for up to
two minutes. Based on this interaction, he identified, in the courtroom, Manuel Mendoza
as the individual with whom he had spoken. The prosecution never inquired about
another detained man that was considered a possible suspect.
Defense counsel raised the subject of another suspect during cross-examination of
Officers Darius Williams and Robert Walters. In questioning Officer Williams, defense
counsel, without framing a question, noted that someone had determined that the other
suspect was not the individual with whom Sergeant Fowler interacted. In response,
Williams stated, “Yes. [Sergeant] Fowler and I—responded to the area and he told us
10
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
that that was not the suspect.” RP at 196. Defense counsel did not object to this hearsay
remark.
During cross-examination of Officer Robert Walters, defense counsel asked
whether Officer Walters spoke with Sergeant Ritchie Fowler while he detained the other
suspect. Walters initially answered that he did not recall speaking with Sergeant Fowler
directly. He elaborated, however, that Fowler determined that the individual was not the
right suspect.
Manuel Mendoza complains that trial defense counsel erred by not objecting to
Officer Darius Williams’s unsolicited comment that Sergeant Ritchie Fowler determined
that the other individual was not the correct suspect. He further criticizes counsel for
allowing two witnesses to state that Fowler ruled out the other suspect. Mendoza argues
that the testimony rendered Fowler more credible in the jurors’ eyes. By connecting
Fowler with the elimination of the other individual from suspicion, defense counsel
purportedly assisted the prosecution and lessened its burden.
In hindsight, Manuel Mendoza might be correct, although we doubt such.
Regardless, Mendoza fails to note that Sergeant Ritchie Fowler identified Mendoza in
court as the one in whose backpack he found the gun. Defense counsel needed to detract
from this identification and one legitimate strategy in doing so was to show that two other
officers thought another person might be the suspect. The testimony of the two officers
also supported a defense argument that law enforcement shortcut the investigation.
11
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
In addition to our conclusion that trial counsel did not perform ineffectively, we
conclude that Manuel Mendoza shows no prejudice. Because of the strength of Sergeant
Ritchie Fowler’s identification of Mendoza, the outcome would have remained the same
regardless of whether trial counsel questioned the other officers about their interaction
with the other suspect.
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS
Manuel Mendoza forwards six additional grounds for review.
1. Manuel Mendoza contends that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance
of counsel when he failed to communicate with him during the course of his prosecution
and thereby denied him the right to assist in his own defense. Again, to show ineffective
assistance of counsel, Mendoza must show that his counsel performed deficiently and
that this performance served to prejudice him. State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862
(2009).
Manuel Mendoza claims he encountered a difficult time reaching defense counsel
with whom he wanted to prepare for trial. He believes that his input would have
strengthened his defense. Nevertheless, Mendoza fails to explain how his assistance
would have led to a successful defense.
2. Manuel Mendoza next contends that his trial counsel performed ineffectively
when failing to suppress evidence of DNA and of a fingerprint analysis. Nevertheless,
Kristin Drury, the Yakima Police Department forensic laboratory supervisor, testified that
12
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
she did not find any fingerprints on the firearm. Drury swabbed the gun for DNA, but
did not send the swabs for analysis.
3. Manuel Mendoza contends that defense counsel performed ineffectively when
leading witnesses to where the jury is unable to assess the credibility of the witnesses.
He complains that leading questions by his trial counsel were calculated and pervasive.
We note that leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. Mendoza fails to
show that defense counsel acted improperly or that he suffered prejudice by the
questions.
4. Manuel Mendoza contends that a jury instruction should have informed the jury
on how to weigh discrepancies in witness’ testimony. One of the jury instructions that
the trial court delivered read:
You are the sole judges of the credibility of each witness. You are
also the sole judges of the value or weight to be given to the testimony of
each witness. In considering a witness’s testimony, you may consider these
things: the opportunity of the witness to observe or know the things he or
she testifies about; the ability of the witness to observe accurately; the
quality of a witness’s memory while testifying; the manner of the witness
while testifying; any personal interest that the witness might have in the
outcome or the issues; any bias or prejudice that the witness may have
shown; the reasonableness of the witness’s statements in the context of all
of the other evidence; and any other factors that affect your evaluation or
belief of a witness or your evaluation of his or her testimony.
Clerk’s Papers at 9. This common jury instruction properly instructed the jury.
5. Manuel Mendoza cites to legal authority which mentions the establishment of
the corpus delicti of a crime. The term corpus delicti may be used when describing to
13
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
whether the State has successfully met its burden of proving a case beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Angulo, 148 Wn. App. 642, 648, 200 P.3d 752 (2009). The corpus
delicti of unlawful firearm possession requires the State to prove a connection between
the defendant and the firearm possession. State v. Wright, 76 Wn. App. 811, 818, 888
P.2d 1214, review denied, 127 Wn.2d 1010, 902 P.2d 163 (1995). Mendoza suggests that
insufficient evidence existed to connect him to the firearm in his prosecution.
Nevertheless, testimony established that Sergeant Ritchie Fowler identified Mendoza as
the individual whom he confronted in the laundromat parking lot. Fowler felt the
backpack and felt a gun. The backpack contained the gun. Mendoza threw the backpack
containing the firearm at Fowler.
6. Manuel Mendoza contends that the prosecuting attorney committed misconduct
by telling the jury “[a]nd your chances of winning the lottery are probably about as good
as getting bit by a shark in Yakima.” RP at 308. He contends that this comment meant
that the jury could only acquit him with an emotional decision. The point of the
prosecutor’s argument is difficult to discern even in context. Nevertheless, the comment
does not convey that the jury was required to make a decision based on emotion.
CONCLUSION
We affirm Manuel Mendoza’s conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.
14
No. 37123-9-III
State v. Mendoza
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_________________________________
Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Siddoway, A.C.J.
______________________________
Staab, J.
15