Personal Restraint Petition Of James Dean Haselwood

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint No. 54539-0-II
Petition of
JAMES DEAN HASELWOOD,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Petitioner.
WORSWICK, J. — James Haselwood seeks relief from personal restraint imposed as a
result of his 2019 pleas of guilty to two counts of residential burglary, three counts of attempted
residential burglary (Pierce County cause number 19-1-00499-3), and to second degree theft
(Pierce County cause number 19-1-00501-9). The State recommended an 84-month sentence,
the high end of the standard range. Haselwood requested a sentence under the drug offender
sentencing alternative (DOSA). The trial court declined to impose a DOSA sentence and
imposed an 84-month sentence.
Haselwood now argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel by being
pressured into pleading guilty, by not investigating his claim of police brutality during his arrest
by obtaining body camera footage, and by agreeing to a term of community supervision that
made him ineligible for a DOSA sentence. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, he
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
December 15, 2020

No. 54539-0-II
2
must demonstrate that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness and that as a result of that deficient performance, the result of his case probably
would have been different. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335-36, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995);
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). This
court presumes strongly that trial counsel’s performance was reasonable. State v. Grier, 171
Wn.2d 17, 42, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011). Haselwood does not show either deficient performance or
resulting prejudice and, thus, does not present evidence that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. In his statement on plea of guilty, he stated that he had not been pressured into pleading
guilty. He does not show that not conducting an investigation of his claim of police brutality was
deficient performance because the police officers who arrested him do not wear body cameras.
And he is mistaken that the term of community custody made him ineligible for a DOSA
sentence. As addressed below, the trial court did not impose a DOSA sentence for a different
reason. Haselwood does not show ineffective assistance of counsel.
Haselwood next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not imposing a DOSA
sentence. So long as the trial court does not categorically refuse to impose a DOSA sentence, the
defendant must show that the trial court abused its discretion by not imposing a DOSA. State v.
Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333, 341-43, 111 P.3d 1183 (2005). Haselwood does not show such an
abuse of discretion. According to Haselwood’s petition, the trial court declined to impose a
DOSA sentence citing public safety considerations. Haselwood’s lengthy criminal history
supports that reason.

No. 54539-0-II
3
Haselwood does not show any grounds for relief from personal restraint. We therefore
deny his petition and his request for appointment of counsel.
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.
___________________________
Worswick, P.J.
____________________________
Glasgow, J.
____________________________
Cruser, J.