PORT ANGELES — The state Court of Appeals is remanding back to Clallam County a 2016 Superior Court case the appeals court judges said has broad implications for bail-setting procedures statewide.
The three judges ruled Sept. 25 that Superior Court Judge Judge Erik Rohrer’s violated statewide court criminal rules by setting $1,000 bail for a felony harassment charge against an indigent defendant, Andrew James Huckins of Port Angeles, instead of considering other options.
Appeals Court Clerk Derek Byrne said Wednesday that Clallam County likely will be sent notice of the decision today, after the county did not appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court by the Oct. 26 deadline.
“It’s a done deal,” Byrne said.
The deadline for filing an appeal of the ruling to the state Supreme Court was last Friday.
“The proper interpretation and application of the bail rule is relevant to all criminal cases and there is currently a dearth of cases on point,” the court ruled.
“Deciding this issue would provide useful guidance and assistance to all judges who have a duty to set release conditions for criminal defendants.”
Rohrer is running for Port Angeles-West End-area District Court 2 judge against Forks lawyer John Black in the Nov. 6 general election.
Rohrer analyzed the court’s decision in an email to Peninsula Daily News on Wednesday following a request for an interview on the ruling.
Rohrer said in the email that Huckins was described by law enforcement as being “raging mad” and having “blacked out all day.”
“The concern is that the court did not make sufficient findings that less restrictive conditions would assure the safety of the community,” he said.
“In retrospect, I probably should have more clearly connected, on the record, (1) the defendant’s recent domestic violence assault conviction, (2) the current allegations of threatening to stab his roommate over a relatively trivial issue, (3) his comments about blacking out, being “in the black” and not remembering that day’s events, and (4) his statement that he got so mad that he could not remember anything, with my decision to impose monetary bail,” Rohrer said.
County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jesse Espinoza said with the way courts are starting to rule in cases of setting bail for indigent defendants such as Huckins, “those set of facts are not favorable to us” for an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
“That’s why [the appeals court] took the case.
“Monetary bail is becoming an issue nationwide.”
Huckins, 23, also had requested during Superior Court proceedings that all financial obligations associated with community custody and other state Department of Corrections costs should be stayed.
The judges ruled that Judge Brian Coughenour imposed his judgment and sentence on Huckins by relying on a statute “that does not exist,” and confirmed that fees and conditions should not be part of Huckins’ written judgment sentence, which Coughenhour had decided.
That statute has since been recodified, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jesse Espinoza said.
Coughenour said the remand will lead to a correction of the statute reference.
“The typo is the only thing I see being changed,” Coughenour said Wednesday.
“The most important part of this case for me was the prosecutor wanted this person, who never made any money in his entire life, to pay costs and fees and I said, this guy does not have to pay anything because he could never, ever in his life make any money because he’s disabled.
“I imposed no costs whatsoever on this person.”
Huckins did not appeal his conviction, but contended his constitutional rights were violated by Rohrer ordering bail he could not afford without doing an analysis required by court rules.
Huckins had been charged with harassment-threats to kill for allegedly threatening a man with a 4-inch-blade knife, according to court records.
Huckins pleaded guilty Jan. 3, 2017, to a lesser charge of felony harassment-threats to kill and was sentenced by Coughenour to 54 days in jail with credit for the 54 days he had served.
“Although Huckins does not seek reversal of his conviction, he contends that the trial court violated the pretrial release rule, CrR 3.2(d)(6) and his constitutional rights by ordering bail he could not afford without doing the analysis required by the rule,” the three-judge appeals court said.
“Despite its mootness, we address the issue of bail because it is of continuing and substantial public interest.
“We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider less restrictive conditions that monetary bail.”
The court quoted from Rohrer’s Nov. 16 ruling on setting bail.
“[I]t’s just the actual, the fact that he was convicted of a domestic violence assault last year and this year he’s charged with another domestic violence assault, a more serious one, again, is the Court’s concern, and I’m a little bit nervous about just releasing him because I don’t really understand this whole thing and it did involve, allegedly, somebody being told that he was going to get stabbed in the gut with a knife that was pulled on him, which does not sound good to the Court,” according to the transcript included in the appeals court decision.
“I think what I’m going to do is, I may change my mind on this but at this point I’m going to set a small amount of bail. I know it’s less than the State is seeking but I’m going to set bail at $1,000,” Rohrer said.
“I think to Mr. Huckins that would be a lot of money and I might give some thought to the special report calendar, especially if I knew a little more about what Mr. Huckins was doing, if he’s actively engaged in some sort of treatment or counseling and I guess I’m a little bit concerned about what his relationship is with this house and what he has there, if his possessions are there and that kind of thing and I don’t need to know all that right today but it just seems like those are the kind of the issues.”
________
Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 55650, or at pgottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
