State Of Washington, Respondent V. Lonnie Ray Carter, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
V.
LONNIE RAY CARTER,
Appellant.
No. 75414-9-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: February 20, 2018
PER CURIAM. Lonnie Ray Carter appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to third degree theft and possession of heroin. Carter's
counsel on appeal contends, and the State concedes, that the no-contact
provision regarding Macy's on the possession count is not crime-related. Counsel
also contends, and the State concedes, that the judgment and sentence for
possession of heroin contains a scrivener's error in its statutory citation. We
accept the State's concessions and remand with instructions to amend the
judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion.
In a Statement of Additional Grounds,1 Carter contends his counsel
"labored under an actual conflict of interest." SAG at 1. He contends the conflict
1 Carter filed the same Statement of Additional Grounds(SAG)in this appeal and appeal
No. 75413-1. The appeals are taken from a single plea and sentencing hearing encompassing
two sets of convictions. Because the same attorney represented Carter on all of the matters
before the court in those hearings, and because the SAGs allege that counsel had a conflict of
interest, we address the SAG in both appeals.

No;75414-9-1/2
resulted in a sentence that failed to provide him sufficient security from alleged
contracts for his murder. He alleges his trial counsel knew he wanted a sentence
that could be served in protective custody because he "is a 'Target' for 'Murder"
"[f]or being a 'Government Informant [.]" SAG (9/28/17) at 2. He claims counsel
failed to inform him that a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative(DOSA)could
not be served in the Intensive Management Unit or other forms of protective
custody. He concludes that conflict-free counsel would have obtained a sentence
providing the protection he sought.
Carter's claim involves matters largely outside the record and is therefore
reviewable only in a personal restraint petition. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d
322, 338, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). The record contains no declarations regarding
his alleged conversations with counsel. Nor does his quotation from the plea
hearing reveal the nature of any discussions with counsel. Carter did file a motion
to discharge counsel the day before sentencing, but that motion involved
counsel's pretrial conduct, not his conduct at sentencing, and is based in part on
matters outside this court's record.
Carter also contends his trial counsel and the prosecutor violated his
Eighth Amendment rights because they acted "with 'deliberate indifference' and a
disregard of Pre-trial Detainee Carter's serious safety concerns [J" SAG at 2.
This claim also involves matters outside the record, appears to be moot, and in
any event is too conclusory to merit review under RAP 10.10(c).
2

' No. 75414-9-1/3
Affirmed in part and remanded in part for amendment of the judgment and
sentence.
For the Court:
3