State Of Washington, Respondent V. Ira David Dechant, Appellant

2015MAI? Ik
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
IRA DAVID DECHANT,
Appellant.
No. 72055-4-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	March 14, 2016
r:- I j-
Leach, J. — Ira Dechant appeals multiple convictions stemming from his
January 2013 arrest and his role in a subsequent plot to kill the man he believed
to be responsible for his arrest. 	He claims that the corpus delicti rule requires
independent proof to corroborate statements he made during the course of the
crimes of conspiracy, solicitation, and attempted murder. 	He also contends that
his trial counsel provided ineffective representation because he did not file a
motion to suppress evidence and that his multiple convictions based upon a
single plot to kill subject him to double jeopardy. Because Dechant's statements
made during the course of the crimes were not confessions, the corpus delicti
rule does not apply. 	He also fails to establish deficient conduct or prejudice, and
his convictions do not violate double jeopardy. 	Finally, none of the issues he
raises in his statement of additional grounds has merit. We affirm.

No. 72055-4-1 / 2
FACTS
On January 7, 2013, Seattle Police Officer Pete Lazarou received a tip
from a longstanding confidential informant, Louis Didomenici. 	Didomenici told
Officer Lazarou that Ira Dechant had an outstanding warrant and 	possessed
firearms. 	Didomenici also told the officer that Dechant was driving a BMW in the
Ravenna neighborhood. 	In addition to being an informant, Didomenici worked as
an automobile broker and had loaned Dechant the BMW several days earlier.
Officer Lazarou confirmed the outstanding warrant for Dechant's arrest.
With help from other officers, Officer Lazarou located and stopped the vehicle
Didomenici described. 	The officers arrested Dechant on the warrant. 	Dechant
told the officers he did 	not 	own 	the BMW and 	provided 	Didomenici's phone
number. 	Officer Lazarou called Didomenici. 	He came to the scene with the
vehicle's registered owner. 	Both consented to a search of the vehicle. 	During
the 	search, 	the 	police found 	several 	items, 	including 	two firearms, 	a 	police
tactical vest, a security badge, a King County Sheriff's Office patch, hypodermic
needles, and over $10,000 in cash.
Police 	officers 	booked 	Dechant 	into 	the 	King 	County 	jail. 	While
conducting a strip search, the police found baggies containing methamphetamine
and heroin.

No. 72055-4-1 / 3
While 	in jail, Dechant met Michael 	Rogers, who 	had 	been arrested in
connection with a 	bank robbery. 	Rogers and Dechant, who had both served
substantial time in custody, eventually shared a jail cell. 	Sitting at a card table
one day with Rogers and several others, Dechant expressed his anger at the
person who "set him up" and asked if anyone would be "willing to take care of the
guy."
Rogers was interested 	in the proposal. 	In later private conversations,
Dechant provided more details, 	including 	Didomenici's name and occupation.
Dechant 	drew 	a 	map 	showing 	where 	Didomenici 	lived. 	Dechant 	gave
instructions about how he wanted Rogers to kill Didomenici—he wanted him to
pour gasoline over Didomenici and set him on fire or, alternatively, he wanted
Rogers to shoot him and cut off his head and hands. 	Dechant told Rogers that
his "prodigy," Chuck, would provide anything Rogers needed, including a firearm
and money, in order to kill Didomenici. 	Dechant gave Rogers Chuck's address
and drew him a map to Chuck's house. 	Rogers asked for $8,000, but they did
not ultimately settle on a fixed price. 	Dechant provided some information to
Rogers to enable him to commit identity thefts and 	raise money for Dechant's
bail. 	They discussed a plan to commit robberies together to raise funds once
they were both released from jail.

No. 72055-4-1 / 4
Gradually, 	Rogers 	developed 	some 	reservations 	about the 	plan. 	He
began to feel manipulated by Dechant and also discovered that Didomenici had
children. 	When jail authorities placed Dechant in isolation, Rogers reported the
plot to jail staff. 	Rogers said he believed that if he refused to carry out the plan,
Dechant would merely find someone else to do it.
Rogers met with a detective and agreed to ask Dechant about the plan
while 	wearing 	a 	recording 	device. 	In 	a 	recorded 	conversation, 	Dechant
confirmed that Chuck would provide Rogers with a "piece." 	He also gave Rogers
further 	instructions 	about when 	to 	go 	to 	Didomenici's 	residence 	and 	about
moving his dead body to a certain abandoned house.
While in jail, Dechant called Charles Scheulke, the man he called "Chuck."
Scheulke met Dechant about a month before his January 2013 arrest. 	They
robbed people and sold drugs together. 	During the robberies, Scheulke and
Dechant disguised themselves as police officers, and both carried firearms.
In their conversations, Dechant expressed anger about the "car salesman"
who "set [him] up" and asked Scheulke to visit him in person. 	Dechant also
informed Scheulke about a fellow inmate who would be released from jail soon
and 	then 	contact him. 	Dechant described 	Rogers' distinctive tattoo so that
Scheulke would be able to identify him.
-4-

No. 72055-4-1 / 5
Scheulke also visited Dechant in jail. 	He brought a notebook and took
notes. 	They discussed Didomenici's betrayal. 	Dechant instructed Scheulke to
provide Rogers with "anything that he needs." 	Dechant made it specifically clear
that Scheulke was to provide Rogers with a gun.
On January 29, 2013, jail authorities released Rogers into the custody of
the investigating detective. 	Just before his release, Rogers told 	Dechant that
Rogers' father was going to post his bail. 	Under police surveillance, Rogers went
to Scheulke's home. 	According to Scheulke, at this point he became aware that
Rogers intended to kill Didomenici. 	Scheulke provided Rogers with a firearm and
agreed to go with him to Didomenici's residence. 	En route to Didomenici's home,
Rogers gave a prearranged signal to the police to indicate that Scheulke had
given 	him a firearm. 	Police officers then stopped and arrested 	Rogers and
Scheulke.
The State charged Dechant with unlawful possession of a firearm in the
second degree and possession of heroin based upon the evidence found when
he was arrested on January 7, 2013. 	The State also charged Dechant with
solicitation to commit murder in the first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in
the first degree, and attempted murder in the first degree based on the plot to
murder Didomenici.

No. 72055-4-1 / 6
The State originally charged Scheulke with attempted first degree murder
and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. 	He pleaded guilty to a reduced
charge in exchange for his agreement to testify at Dechant's trial. Rogers also
testified at trial. 	In exchange, the State reduced his underlying bank robbery
charge and allowed him to plead guilty to rendering criminal assistance.
Although the State presented all the evidence in a single trial before a jury,
Dechant waived his right to a jury on the firearm and drug charges. 	The jury and
the trial court found Dechant guilty as charged.
CORPUS DELICTI
Dechant 	challenges 	the 	sufficiency 	of 	the 	evidence 	supporting 	his
convictions related to the plot to murder Didomenici. 	Specifically, he argues, for
the first time on 	appeal, 	that the State failed 	to 	prove the corpus delicti of
solicitation, conspiracy, and attempted murder independent of his incriminating
out-of-court statements. 	We review this issue de novo.1
"Corpus delicti" means the "body of the crime" and requires the State to
prove both a criminal act and 	a 	resulting loss.2 "The corpus delicti rule was
established to protect a defendant from the possibility of an unjust conviction
based upon a false confession alone."3
1 State v. McPhee. 156 Wn. App. 44, 60, 230 P.3d 284 (2010); State v.
Pineda. 99 Wn. App. 65, 76-77, 992 P.2d 525 (2000).
2 See State v. Aten, 130 Wn.2d 640, 655, 927 P.2d 210 (1996).
3 State v. Vanqerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 796, 888 P.2d 1177 (1995).
-6-

No. 72055-4-1 / 7
Dechant's argument assumes that the incriminating statements he made
to Rogers and Scheulke were confessions. 	We disagree. 	These statements
constituted part of the crimes. 	Dechant did not admit guilt relating to any past
completed 	crimes. 	While 	Dechant argues 	at 	length 	that the 	corpus 	delicti
doctrine applies to this case, he cites no legal authority supporting the position
that statements made during the course of a crime or statements that constitute a
criminal act are confessions and, thus, require independent corroboration. 	And
this 	court 	has 	explicitly refused 	to 	apply the 	corpus 	delicti 	rule to 	exclude
statements made before or during the commission of a crime.4
In 	State 	v. 	Dyson,5 	we 	rejected 	the 	defendant's 	argument 	that 	his
statements comprising negotiation and agreement for an act of prostitution were
inadmissible because they were 	not corroborated by independent proof. 	We
looked to the definition of a "confession" as an "expression of guilt as to a past
act."6 We held the corpus delicti rule did not apply because Dyson's statements
were a part of the crime itself and not a confession to a completed crime.7
4 See State v. Dyson, 91 Wn. App. 761, 763-64, 959 P.2d 1138 (1998);
see also State v. Pietrzak, 110 Wn. App. 670, 681-82, 41 	P.3d 1240, 	review
denied, 147 Wn.2d 1013 (2002).
5 91 Wn. App. 761, 763, 959 P.2d 1138 (1998).
6 Dyson, 91 Wn. App. at 763.
7 Dyson, 91 Wn. App. at 763-64.
-7-

No. 72055-4-1 / 8
Also, in State v. Pietrzak.8 the State presented evidence that Pietrzak told
people that he disliked the victim, Kelly Conway, and wanted to kill her. 	After
Pietrzak 	made 	these 	statements, 	Conway 	disappeared.9 	Following 	the
disappearance, Pietrzak admitted to others that he killed the victim.10 	On appeal,
Pietrzak challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the corpus delicti
of 	the 	crime.11 	Division 	Three 	of 	this 	court 	held 	that 	Pietrzak's 	precrime
incriminating statements were not confessions and, 	therefore, did not require
independent corroboration.12
Similarly, Dechant's statements to Rogers and Scheulke were part of the
crimes of solicitation, 	conspiracy, 	and 	attempted 	murder. 	Because 	Dechant
never "expressed guilt" at a later date about these acts, no confession occurred.
The corpus delicti rule does not apply.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Dechant also challenges his convictions of solicitation to commit murder in
the first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree, and attempted
murder in the first degree on double jeopardy grounds.
8 110 Wn. App. 670, 675-76, 41 P.3d 1240, review denied. 147 Wn.2d
1013(2002).
9 Pietrzak. 110 Wn. App. at 672, 675.
10 Pietrzak. 110 Wn. App. at 676.
11 Pietrzak. 110 Wn. App. at 679.
12 Pietrzak. 110 Wn. App. at 680-81.
-8-

No. 72055-4-1 / 9
The double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions protect
a defendant against multiple punishments for the same offense.13 	Although the
State may bring multiple charges arising from the same criminal conduct when a
defendant's 	conduct 	supports 	charges 	under 	multiple 	criminal 	statutes, 	to
evaluate a 	double jeopardy challenge, 	a 	court 	must determine if, 	in light of
legislative intent, the charged crimes constitute the same offense.14 	"If the
legislature 	authorized 	cumulative 	punishments for 	both 	crimes, 	then 	double
jeopardy is not offended."15
If the statutory language does not clearly authorize multiple punishments,
the court must consider principles of statutory construction.16 	Then, the test "to
determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision
requires proof of a fact which the other does not."17 	"'If there is an element in
each offense which is not included in the other, and proof of one offense would
not necessarily also prove the other, the offenses are not constitutionally the
13 U.S. Const, amend. V; Wash. Const, art. 	I, § 9; State v. Calle. 125
Wn.2d 769, 772, 888 P.2d 155 (1995).
14 State v. Freeman, 153 Wn.2d 765, 771, 108 P.3d 753 (2005).
15 Freeman. 153 Wn.2d at 771.
16 In re Pers. Restraint of Borrero. 161 Wn.2d 532, 536, 167 P.3d 1106
(2007).
17 Blockburqer v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L.
Ed. 306(1932).
-9-

No. 72055-4-1/10
same and the double jeopardy clause does 	not 	prevent convictions for both
offenses.'"18
Where, as here, 	one of the two crimes is an attempt crime, "the test
requires further refinement."19 This is because one of the elements of an attempt
crime is "'any act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that
crime.'"20 	This "substantial step" element is merely a placeholder until the facts
of the particular case give it independent meaning.21 	Therefore, to determine if
the two convictions violate double jeopardy, we examine the actual facts that
constitute the substantial step.22
But even when the same facts supporting the defendant's conviction for
the separate offense could also constitute the substantial step of the attempt, no
double jeopardy violation occurs if the record includes additional facts that would
also constitute the substantial step.23 	The reviewing court should not presume
"that the trier of fact relied on only the facts tending to prove both crimes."24
Unless 	the 	facts 	providing 	the 	basis 	for 	the 	separate 	conviction 	are 	also
18 Calle, 125 Wn.2d at 777 (quoting State v. Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d 413, 423,
662 P.2d 853 (1983)).
19 Borrero. 161 Wn.2d at 537.
20 Borrero. 161 Wn.2d at 537 (quoting RCW 9A.28.020(1)).
21 Borrero. 161 Wn.2d at 537.
22 Borrero. 161 Wn.2d at 537.
23 Borrero. 161 Wn.2d at 538.
24 Borrero. 161 Wn.2d at 538.
-10-

No. 72055-4-I /11
necessary 	to 	prove the 	attempt 	crime, double 	jeopardy 	principles are 	not
offended.25
As the 	State 	points out, the 	crimes at 	issue 	include 	different 	legal
elements and each requires proof of a fact that the others do not. To prove the
crime of solicitation to commit murder in the first degree, the State was required
to demonstrate that Dechant offered to give money or some other thing of value
to another to engage 	in 	conduct 	constituting 	first 	degree 	murder.26 	And
solicitation alone, which "involves no more than asking or enticing someone to
commit a crime," does not constitute the crime of attempt.27
To convict Dechant of the crime of attempted murder in the first degree,
the State had to prove that he did an act "which is a substantial step toward the
commission of that crime."28 	"[Cjonduct is not a substantial step 'unless it is
strongly corroborative ofthe actor's criminal purpose.'"29
Finally, to prove conspiracy, the State had to establish that with the intent
to commit a crime, Dechant agreed with one or more persons to engage in or
cause the performance of such conduct and any member of the conspiracy took
25 Borrero, 161 Wn.2d at 538-39.
26 RCW 9A.28.030(1); State v. Jensen. 164 Wn.2d 943, 949, 195 P.3d 512
(2008).
27 State v. Gay. 4 Wn. App. 834, 839-40, 486 P.2d 341 (1971).
28RCW9A.28.020(1).
29 State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 451, 584 P.2d 382 (1978) (quoting
Model Penal Code § 5.01(2)).
-11-

No. 72055-4-1/12
a substantial step in pursuance of the agreement.30 	The substantial step in this
context merely serves to demonstrate an active agreement; it does not, as with
an attempt, have to corroborate criminal intent.31 	Thus, "the conspiracy statute
requires a lesser act than does the attempt statute."32 The "preparatory conduct
which furthers the ability of the conspirators to carry out the agreement can be 'a
substantial step in pursuance of [the] agreement.'"33
Dechant argues that the evidence required to prove conspiracy was the
same evidence required to prove the substantial step of the attempted murder.
We 	disagree. 	As 	noted, 	a 	double 	jeopardy 	issue 	arises 	only 	if the 	same
evidence used to prove the crime of conspiracy was necessary to prove the
substantial step of the attempted murder.34 	When Dechant's accomplices drove
toward Didomenici's residence armed with a firearm, they took a substantial step
toward the commission of murder in the first degree. 	However, the jury did not
need 	this 	evidence 	to 	find 	Dechant 	guilty 	of 	conspiracy. 	Other 	evidence
established 	Dechant's 	agreement 	with 	Rogers 	and 	Scheulke 	and 	that 	the
conspirators took action in furtherance of the agreement. 	For instance, the jury
heard evidence that Dechant provided maps to 	Rogers and arranged for an
30RCW9A.28.040(1).
31 State v. Dent. 123 Wn.2d 467, 475, 869 P.2d 392 (1994).
32 Dent, 123Wn.2dat477.
33 	Dent. 	123 	Wn.2d 	at 	477 	(alteration 	in 	original) 	(quoting 	RCW
9A.28.040(1)).
34 See Borrero, 161 Wn.2d at 538-39.
-12-

No. 72055-4-1/13
outside contact to assist him in carrying out the plan. 	Dechant had contact with
Scheulke, by telephone and in person, to secure his assistance. 	He wrote letters
to Scheulke with further instructions. 	Scheulke also took a substantial step in
furtherance of the agreement when he met with Rogers and supplied him with a
firearm and money. The evidence establishing the conspiracy was not the only
evidence 	constituting 	the 	substantial 	step 	element 	of 	attempted 	murder.
Therefore, no double jeopardy violation occurred.
Dechant 	also 	contends 	that 	double 	jeopardy 	bars 	his 	conviction 	of
solicitation to commit murder because solicitation 	is merely a lesser included
offense of attempted murder. 	Therefore, he argues that these two convictions
should merge. 	In instances where the degree of one offense is elevated by
conduct 	constituting 	a 	separate 	offense, 	"the 	merger 	doctrine 	may 	help
determine legislative intent."35 	This doctrine, 	however, applies "only when a
crime is elevated to a higher degree by proof of another crime proscribed
elsewhere 	in the 	criminal 	code."36 	Here, 	proof 	that 	Dechant 	committed
solicitation to commit murder did not elevate the crime of attempted murder to a
higher degree. Accordingly, the merger doctrine does not apply.
Dechant's convictions of conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree
and attempted murder in the first degree do not violate the prohibition against
35 State v. Kier. 164 Wn.2d 798, 804, 194 P.3d 212 (2008).
36 State v. Parmelee, 108 Wn. App. 702, 710, 32 P.3d 1029 (2001).
-13-

No. 72055-4-1 /14
double jeopardy. 	Nor did the trial court err by declining to apply the doctrine of
merger to 	his 	convictions of 	solicitation 	to 	commit first 	degree 	murder and
attempted murder.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Dechant claims his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because
he did not file a motion to suppress the evidence seized during his January 2013
arrest.
A defendant making this claim has the burden of establishing that (1)
counsel's performance was deficient and 	(2) counsel's deficient performance
prejudiced 	the defendant's case.37 	The 	claim fails if a 	defendant does 	not
establish either prong.38 	Counsel's performance is deficient if it falls below an
objective standard of reasonableness.39 Our scrutiny of counsel's performance is
highly 	deferential, 	and 	we 	strongly 	presume 	reasonableness.40 	When 	an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on a failure to move to suppress
evidence, the defendant must show that the motion to suppress would have been
granted.41
37 Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed.
2d 674 (1984).
38 Strickland. 466 U.S. at 700.
39 State v. McFarland. 127 Wn.2d 322, 334, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).
40 McFarland. 127 Wn.2d at 335.
41 McFarland. 127 Wn.2d at 333-34.
-14-

No. 72055-4-1/15
Dechant claims that counsel should have moved to suppress evidence
because the police searched the BMW without valid consent. 	He argues that his
"borrowed 	car 	agreement" 	with 	Didomenici 	gave 	him 	the 	exclusive 	right 	to
consent to a search. 	He asserts that neither consent from Didomenici or the
registered owner supplied lawful authority to search. 	Although some testimony
suggests an agreement about Dechant's temporary use of the vehicle, the record
contains no evidence about the terms of that agreement. 	Dechant points to
Scheulke's testimony that he thought the vehicle might represent payment for a
drug debt. 	But Dechant told the police that he could not consent to the search
because 	he 	was 	not the 	legal owner and 	provided 	Didomenici's telephone
number. 	Dechant fails to show that his motion to suppress would have been
granted. 	Moreover, 	not 	asserting 	ownership 	in 	the 	vehicle 	and 	thereby
distancing Dechant from the contraband in the vehicle was a reasonable strategy
under the circumstances.
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
In a statement of additional grounds, Dechant makes several claims, none
of which has merit. 	First, he claims the court failed to investigate possible juror
misconduct and improperly instructed the jurors.
After a lunch break during the trial, before the jury entered the courtroom,
defense counsel informed the court that some witnesses had been "in the area"
-15-

No. 72055-4-1/16
where the jury was "congregating." 	Defense counsel directed the witnesses
away from that area but suggested that the court might instruct witnesses about
where to 	wait outside the courtroom. 	Instead, the court requested that the
prosecutor have the State's witnesses wait further down the hall. 	After the jury
reentered the courtroom, the court reminded the jurors that the attorneys did not
wish to be impolite but were not allowed to communicate with them. 	The court
instructed the jurors not to attempt to talk with the attorneys and that if they had
questions about the case, to ask someone else.
This 	record 	does 	not 	show 	any 	communication 	or 	contact 	between
witnesses and jurors or any other impropriety requiring court investigation. 	And
with regard to the trial court's instruction, Dechant fails to show that the court's
explanation of the rules governing contact between the lawyers and jurors was
incorrect or in any way prejudicial.42
Next, Dechant challenges the court's admission of his recorded custodial
statements 	to 	a 	police 	detective. 	He 	claims 	that 	his 	statements 	were
inadmissible because the police officers failed to state on the record at the outset
of the interview that they were recording the interview and the State failed to
prove that he consented to the recording as required by the Washington privacy
act, RCW 9.73.090(b).
42 See RPC 3.5(b) (to preserve impartiality, ethical rules require attorneys
to avoid ex parte communication with jurors during a proceeding).
-16-

No. 72055-4-1/17
The trial court concluded that law enforcement properly advised Dechant
and he knew that the interview was being recorded. 	The interview room had
clear signage indicating that conversations were not private, and the room was
equipped 	with 	video and 	audio 	recording technology. 	The 	officers advised
Dechant of his 	constitutional 	rights 	and 	discussed, 	in his 	presence, 	if they
needed to use a backup recorder. 	At another point during the interview, one of
the officers reminded Dechant that the interview was being recorded. 	Toward
the end of the interview, Dechant told the officers he would talk to them if they
ceased recording.
State v. Jones43 supports this conclusion. 	Jones, a juvenile from Canada,
claimed that the trial court should 	have suppressed 	his postarrest statement
because the tape did not begin with the officer informing him that the statement
was being recorded, a violation of RCW 9.73.090(1 )(b)(i).44 The court addressed
whether the technical violation of RCW 9.73.090(1 )(b)(i) required suppression
when it was clear that Jones knew his statement was being recorded. 	The tape
recorder was in plain view, and an officer explained on the tape that he was in
the middle of a 	recording and started a question with "'for purposes of this
tape.'"45 	The court held that "the tape recording conforms with the statute and is
43 95 Wn.2d 616, 628 P.2d 472 (1981)
44 Jones. 95Wn.2dat619.
45 Jones. 95 Wn.2d at 626-27.
-17-

No. 72055-4-1/18
therefore admissible."46 	Likewise here, the trial court did not err by refusing to
suppress 	Dechant's 	tape-recorded 	statement 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the 	tape
recording did not comply with RCW 9.73.090(1 )(b)(i).
Finally, Dechant argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance
because he did not ask the court to suppress his statements to Rogers under
Massiah v. United States.47 	He claims this case requires suppression because
Rogers was a government agent and because some of his statements pertained
to the pending drug and firearm charges. We disagree.
Once the State charges a defendant with a crime, it may not knowingly
circumvent his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by using an undisclosed state
agent to deliberately elicit an incriminating statement.48 	The State violates a
defendant's right to counsel when it uses evidence against the defendant that it
deliberately elicited while his attorney was not present.49 	The Sixth Amendment
right to 	counsel 	is 	offense-specific 	and 	cannot 	be 	invoked 	for 	all 	future
prosecutions.50
46 Jones. 95 Wn.2d at 627.
47 377 U.S. 201, 206, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L .Ed. 2d 246 (1964)
48 Maine v. Moulton. 474 U.S. 159, 176, 106 S. Ct. 477, 88 L. Ed. 2d 481
(1985).
49 Fairbank v. Avers. 650 F.3d 1243, 1255 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Massiah.
377 U.S. at 206).
50 United States v. Hines. 963 F.2d 255, 257 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing McNeil
v. Wisconsin. 501 U.S. 171, 175, 111 S. Ct. 2204, 115 L Ed. 2d 158(1991)).
-18-

No. 72055-4-1/19
Nothing in the record suggests that the State deliberately elicited, through
Rogers, any statements about his pending charges. 	According to Rogers and
the detective who conducted the investigation, Rogers' instructions were only to
ask about the plan to kill Didomenici. 	Because Dechant does not establish a
Sixth Amendment violation, he cannot show that a motion brought on this ground
would have been successful. 	His ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
-19-