Appeals panel hears challenge to counsel waiver, shackling and sentence enhancement in Avalos Chavez case

A three-judge appellate panel heard argument on June 15 in State v. Avalos Chavez over whether the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, whether shackling and jail clothing prejudiced proceedings, and whether prior DUI-related charges used to enhance his sentence implicated Apprendi/Blakely protections.

"Moses Okeo, on behalf of Jesus Avalos Chavez, argued that 'I'm not giving up on waiving my rights to have an attorney. I'm not saying I'm representing myself, and at no time have I said that,'" defense counsel told the panel, framing the central claim that Chavez was denied counsel without a valid waiver and later tried and sentenced on a theory of forfeiture. Okeo said the court initially found waiver, corrected course to address missing Paretta warnings, then in January 2023 concluded the defendant had forfeited counsel; a later order dated August 23, 2023, shifted the theory again to waiver by conduct, Okeo said.

Okeo urged the court that disagreements between Chavez and successive appointed counsel (including meetings, exchanged letters, and disputed strategy) do not rise to the extraordinary misconduct required for forfeiture. He also pointed to competency findings and language barriers that, he said, made meaningful waiver unlikely without the constitutional safeguards required by cases such as Acree and Bishop.

State counsel, who identified herself in court as Tamara Hanlon, asked the panel to affirm the conviction. "The court made findings of fact, and those are verities on appeal," she said, arguing the record shows multiple attorneys over less than two years who reported noncooperation, and the trial court repeatedly warned Chavez about penalties and possible loss of counsel. The state said the record contains four exhibits (a JIS printout, an NCIC entry, a certified Walla Walla District Court record and arrest/citation materials) showing earlier DUI charges were amended to negligent driving first-degree convictions and that those official records can be relied on for sentencing enhancement.

The panel probed whether using the docket and court records to conclude that prior DUI charges were amended to negligent-driving convictions involved factfinding that would trigger Blakely or Apprendi protections. One panel judge asked whether the issues raised here overlapped with pending matters before the state supreme court and whether a stay would be appropriate; defense counsel said the questions in this appeal were distinct and could be decided without waiting on other cases.

On shackling and clothing, defense counsel argued the court had an obligation to make an individualized inquiry before placing Chavez in restraints or allowing him to appear in jail clothing, especially given Chavez’s language barriers and competency concerns. State counsel responded that no objection was made at the relevant proceedings, the issue was therefore subject to the manifest constitutional-error standard on appeal, and the record did not show the judge relied on restraints in imposing sentence.

Both sides addressed preservation and harmless-error standards. The state argued that, even if review is permitted, the documentary record plainly establishes the qualifying prior offenses and that any potential error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense disputed that the official records as presented established the necessary facts without jury findings and reiterated that neither forfeiture nor waiver by conduct was supported.

The panel submitted the case after argument and took a short break for a panel change; no decision was announced at the hearing. The court did not vote on motions or announce an outcome at the session.

Next steps: The case is submitted for decision by the panel; no ruling was announced at the oral-argument session.