* State Of Washington, Respondent V. Benjamin Salofi Asaeli, Appellant

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 54035-5-II
Respondent,
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
BENJAMIN SALOFI ASAELI, PUBLISH AND PUBLISHING OPINION
Appellant.
Respondent State of Washington and third party Washington Association of Prosecuting
Attorneys each have moved this court to publish its May 25, 2021 opinion in this case. After
consideration, the court grants the motions. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the final paragraph in the opinion that reads: “A majority of the panel
having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but
will be filed for publish record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered” is deleted. It
is further
ORDERED that the opinion will be published.
PANEL: Jj. Maxa, Cruser, Veljacic
FOR THE COURT:
MAXA, P.J.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
July 13, 2021
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 54035-5-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BENJAMIN SALOFI ASAELI,
Appellant.
MAXA, J. – Benjamin Asaeli appeals the superior court’s denial of his postconviction CrR
4.7 motion for discovery materials. We hold that CrR 4.7 applies only to procedures before trial,
and that Asaeli has not shown a due process right to postconviction discovery. Accordingly, we
affirm the superior court’s order denying Asaeli’s motion.
FACTS
In 2006, a jury found Asaeli guilty of first degree murder by extreme indifference, second
degree felony murder, first degree assault, and possession of a stolen firearm. This court
affirmed Asaeli’s convictions on direct appeal. State v. Asaeli, 150 Wn. App. 543, 208 P.3d
1136 (2009). The mandate was issued on November 17, 2009.
In 2019, Asaeli filed a CrR 4.7 motion to produce discovery in the superior court. He
requested (1) all correspondence between the prosecution and defense, (2) documentation that
shows proof of his criminal history, (3) physical or tangible objects in the State’s possession that
may be relevant to his innocence or guilt, (4) any documents or records that questions or raises
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 25, 2021
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 54035-5-II
3
doubts about the accuracy or reliability of any scientific and/or expert testing, (5) criminal
records of all of the State’s witness, (6) any evidence that may undermine the credibility of any
State witness, (7) all exculpatory evidence that the State may possess, (8) any mitigating
evidence regarding his guilt, and (9) any statements of non-witnesses obtained by the State in
preparing its case in chief.
The superior court originally transferred the matter to this court as a personal restraint
petition. This court rejected the transfer and remanded to the superior court because Asaeli’s
motion was not bought under CrR 7.8. Order Rejecting Transfer, In re Pers. Restraint of Asaeli,
No. 53598-0-II (Wash. Ct. App. June 11, 2019).
The superior court subsequently denied Asaeli’s motion, concluding that CrR 4.7 applies
to pretrial discovery procedures and not to postconviction proceedings. Asaeli appeals the
superior court’s order denying his motion for discovery materials.
ANALYSIS
Asaeli argues that the superior court erred by denying his postconviction CrR 4.7 motion
for the State to produce discovery materials. We disagree.
In general, we review discovery decisions based on CrR 4.7 for abuse of discretion. State
v. Vance, 184 Wn. App. 902, 911, 339 P.3d 245 (2014). However, whether a court rule applies
to a particular fact scenario is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Kindsvogel, 149
Wn.2d 477, 480, 69 P.3d 870 (2003).
We apply the same principles to interpreting court rules that we apply to interpreting
statues. State v. Mankin, 158 Wn. App. 111, 122, 241 P.3d 421 (2010). The primary goal of
court rule interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the Supreme Court’s intent. State v.
Waldon, 148 Wn. App. 952, 962, 202 P.3d 325 (2009). This requires looking at the plain
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 54035-5-II
4
language of the rule, the context of the rule, related provisions, and the rule’s scheme as a whole.
State v. Reisert, 16 Wn. App. 2d 321, 324, 480 P.3d 1151 (2021). As part of this process, we
may look to the rule’s title to assist in interpreting a court rule. See id. at 325. When words in a
court rule are plain and unambiguous, further interpretation is not necessary and we apply the
court rule as written. Mankin, 158 Wn. App. at 122.
CrR 4.7 appears in Title 4 of the Superior Court Criminal Rules, which is titled
“Procedures Prior to Trial.” This title indicates that the Supreme Court intended CrR 4.7 to
apply to pretrial discovery procedures, not after a defendant has been convicted. In addition,
CrR 4.7(a)(1), which addresses the prosecutor’s discovery obligations, states that discovery
material must be produced no later than the omnibus hearing. The omnibus hearing obviously is
a pretrial hearing. Nothing in CrR 4.7 states or even suggests that its provisions apply after
conviction.
We conclude that CrR 4.7 does not apply to postconviction proceedings. Therefore,
Asaeli had no right to file a motion for discovery under CrR 4.7.
The Supreme Court in In re Personal Restraint of Gentry addressed a postconviction
motion for discovery from the standpoint of due process. 137 Wn.2d 378, 390-91, 972 P.2d
1250 (1999). The court stated, “From a due process standpoint, prisoners seeking postconviction
relief are not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course, but are limited to discovery
only to the extent the prisoner can show good cause to believe the discovery would prove
entitlement to relief.” Id. Here, Asaeli has not shown good cause for obtaining discovery.
Therefore, due process did not support his motion.
Because Asaeli’s CrR 4.7 motion was filed 13 years after he was convicted at trial, we
hold that the superior court did not err in denying the motion for discovery materials.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 54035-5-II
5
CONCLUSION
We affirm the superior court’s denial of Asaeli’s postconviction CrR 4.7 motion for
discovery materials.
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.
MAXA, P.J.
We concur:
CRUSER, J.
VELJACIC, J.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.