State of Washington v. Lindsey Dominque Albright (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MARCH 14, 2023 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. LINDSEY DOMINIQUE ALBRIGHT, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 38482-9-III PUBLISHED OPINION PENNELL, J. — Two years after his conviction, Lindsey Albright filed a motion to compel discovery from the State. Mr. Albright did not cite any exceptional circumstances to justify his motion. He merely referenced superior court criminal rules governing a defendant’s right of access to their own lawyer’s file. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm. The rules requiring a defense attorney to disclose their files to their client do not transfer to the State. When it comes to the State, postconviction discovery is generally unavailable absent a showing of extraordinary good cause. Because Mr. Albright did not make this showing, the trial court correctly denied his motion. No. 38482-9-III State v. Albright FACTS In May 2019, Lindsey Albright entered an Alford 1 plea to one count of first-degree assault. The superior court accepted Mr. Albright’s plea and sentenced him to 120 months’ confinement plus 60 months for a firearm enhancement. In September 2021, Mr. Albright filed a pro se “Motion to Compel State for Discovery.” Clerk’s Papers at 20-22. In his motion, Mr. Albright sought “an order to Compel State to disclose discovery. . . . [p]ursuant to CrR 4.7(g)(h).” Id. at 20. The trial court denied the motion. Mr. Albright timely appeals. ANALYSIS Mr. Albright argues that the State is required to produce discovery materials posttrial pursuant to our decision in State v. Padgett, 4 Wn. App. 2d 851, 424 P.3d 1235 (2018). He is incorrect. Padgett addressed an individual’s right to obtain materials from their own attorney, not the right to obtain discovery from the State. Attorneys have ongoing obligations to their clients, even after the close of a particular case or the termination of representation. See RPC 1.16(d). An attorney’s postrepresentation obligations to a client include surrendering papers, such as a client’s file, 1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970). 2 No. 38482-9-III State v. Albright upon request. See id.; Wash. State Bar Ass’n Rules of Prof’l Conduct Comm., Advisory Op. 181 (rev. 2009), available at https://ao.wsba.org/searchresult.aspx?year=&num= 181&arch=False&rpc=&keywords=. Based on an attorney’s ongoing obligations to their client, we held in Padgett that the combined force of RPC 1.16(d) and CrR 4.7(h)(3) means an attorney must turn over a client file at the client’s request upon termination of representation. 4 Wn. App. 2d at 854. If the client file contains discovery, then the client may be able to receive that discovery as part of the client file, subject to appropriate redactions. Id. at 854-55. Because a client’s right to their file is rooted in the attorneyclient relationship, a client’s right to their file is not conditioned on a showing of need. See id. at 854. The State, on the other hand, does not have obligations to criminally accused persons akin to those of legal counsel. In a criminal case, the State is the defendant’s party opponent. The State has an obligation to produce discovery during the pendency of a criminal case. See CrR 4.7(a); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). This is a fundamental component of litigation, civil or criminal. But once a case is over, the State’s ordinary discovery obligations end. 2 This is true even Under RPC 3.8(g), a prosecutor has an ongoing obligation to disclose “new, credible, and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood [ ] that a convicted defendant is innocent.” 2 3 No. 38482-9-III State v. Albright if a conviction is appealed or challenged through a personal restraint petition. See In re Pers. Restraint of Gentry, 137 Wn.2d 378, 390-91, 972 P.2d 1250 (1999). Courts have inherent power to order discovery in the postconviction context, but only in exceptional circumstances where the requesting party shows “good cause,” defined as “a substantial likelihood the discovery will lead to evidence that would compel relief under RAP 16.4(c).” Id. at 390-92. Mr. Albright’s motion did not assert any exceptional circumstances that would justify postconviction discovery from the State. Instead, he relied solely on CrR 4.7, as interpreted in Padgett. Consistent with Gentry, court rules such as CrR 4.7 do not govern a defendant’s request for postconviction discovery from the State. 3 See 137 Wn.2d at 39091. The trial court therefore correctly denied Mr. Albright’s motion. Mr. Albright certainly is entitled to request his client file from his trial counsel. He may also be entitled to information from a state entity pursuant to a public records request. See ch. 42.56 RCW. But Mr. Albright is not entitled to postconviction discovery from the State, as was requested in his motion to the superior court. We disagree with the blanket statement in State v. Asaeli that “CrR 4.7 applies only to procedures before trial.” 17 Wn. App. 2d 697, 698, 491 P.3d 245 (2021). By its plain terms, CrR 4.7 sometimes applies “during trial.” CrR 4.7(h)(2). Furthermore, as explained in Padgett, the combined force of RPC 1.16(d) and CrR 4.7(h)(3) applies to a client’s postconviction request for disclosure of their own attorney’s client file. 3 4 No. 38482-9-III State v. Albright CONCLUSION The order denying Mr. Albright’s motion for discovery is affirmed. Pennell, J. WE CONCUR: Siddoway, C.J. Lawrence-Berrey, J. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.