State Of Washington, Respondent V. Pio Augustino Fagaautau, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 58304-6-II
Linked No. 58347-0-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PIO AUGUSTINO FAGAAUTAU,
Appellant.
CHE, J. ⎯ Pio Augustino Fagaautau appeals the trial court’s denial of his CrR 7.4 motion
to arrest judgment and its denials to reconsider or clarify such motion. However, the motion to
arrest judgment was untimely. Additionally, in his briefing on appeal, Fagaautau raises no error
with the trial court’s decisions that he challenges on appeal. Because Fagaautau’s motion was
untimely and he raises no arguments related to the appealed decisions, we affirm.
FACTS
In June 2019, a jury found Fagaautau guilty of two counts of second degree child rape.
In September 2019, the trial court found the two counts constituted the same criminal conduct
and sentenced Fagaautau accordingly.
Fagaautau appealed his convictions and sentence, raising multiple issues unrelated to
those he now raises. Our court affirmed Fagaautau’s convictions and sentence and issued its
mandate on April 13, 2022.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
September 23, 2025

No. 58304-6-II
2
In May 2023, Fagaautau moved to arrest judgment under CrR 7.4 on double jeopardy
grounds. He argued that his convictions violated the double jeopardy clause because his two
convictions constituted the same offense as they were the same in fact and law. After a hearing
on the motion, the trial court denied Fagaautau’s motion.
On June 2, Fagaautau moved for reconsideration, raising similar arguments to his original
motion. The trial court denied his motion for reconsideration. On June 22, Fagaautau again
moved for reconsideration and clarification, raising substantially similar arguments to his first
motion for reconsideration. The trial court denied Fagaautau’s second motion for
reconsideration and clarification.
Fagaautau appeals.
ANALYSIS
Fagaautau appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to arrest judgment and two
motions for reconsideration and clarification of the trial court’s denial of his motion to arrest
judgment.
Review of a trial court’s decision denying a motion for arrest of judgment requires the
appellate court to engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. State v. Longshore, 141 Wn.2d
414, 420, 5 P.3d 1256 (2000). Under CrR 7.4(b), a motion for arrest of judgment must be served
and filed within 10 days after the verdict or decision. A trial court may use its discretion to
extend the time limit “until such time as judgment is entered.” CrR 7.4(b).
Here, Fagaautau filed his motion for arrest of judgment in 2023. The trial court
sentenced Fagaautau in 2019. There is no evidence that the trial court granted Fagaautau an
extension to file any motion for arrest of judgment, thus Fagaautau’s motion was untimely.

No. 58304-6-II
3
Additionally, Fagaautau raises no arguments on appeal to support any alleged error with
any of these decisions. Although Fagaautau’s underlying motion to arrest judgment centered on
an argument that his convictions violated double jeopardy, Fagaautau makes no mention of
“double jeopardy” in his brief.
Instead, Fagaautau argues (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction beginning at his trial,
(2) the charging documents failed to comply with Criminal Rules for Courts of Limited
Jurisdiction’s rule 2.1’s pleading requirements, (3) an arrest warrant was issued without a
showing of probable cause, (4) Fagaautau was not promptly informed of his right to counsel,
(5) Fagaautau was not given a timely probable cause determination, and (6) the State failed to
provide evidence required under Brady v. Maryland.1
It is not clear how any of these alleged errors relate to the trial court’s denial of
Fagaautau’s motion to arrest judgment based on double jeopardy or the denial of the two
reconsideration and clarification motions. And the scope of our review is generally limited to
those decisions designated in a notice of appeal, and Fagaautau makes no argument that an
exception to this general rule applies. See RAP 2.4. Because Fagaautau’s motion to arrest
judgment was untimely and he assigns no error to the trial court’s denial of that motion and its
subsequent denial of his two motions for reconsideration and clarification of that decision, we
affirm.
1 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963).

No. 58304-6-II
4
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Fagaautau’s motion to arrest judgment and its denials
to reconsider or clarify that decision.
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.
Che, J.
We concur:
Maxa, J.
Veljacic, A.C.J.