CLARKSTON, WA – A 39-year-old Lewis-Clark Valley man who allegedly threatened a mass shooting at a local elementary school and the Asotin County Fair Parade more than two years ago has won an appeal that remands the case back to Asotin County Superior Court. Today, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington Division III ruled that Trevor Lunney has “the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea.”
Lunney also faces charges filed this past May by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office for intimidation of a judge and four counts of harassment against local officials. In that case, the declaration of probable cause asserts that while in jail on the threats case, he communicated to another inmate threats to harm multiple people, and those threats intensified after his guilty plea the following year. Lunney told the inmate over more than two months in 2023 about detailed plans he had to kill the judge who presided over his case, the judge’s dog, the county prosecutor who handled his case, a city councilor, and a jail guard.
“According to the inmate who reported the threats, Lunney’s plans included following some of his targets to their homes to find out where they lived, as well as a “unique courthouse invasion.” He planned to have other individuals lace the food of some of the targets with fentanyl or spray fentanyl on the targets,” the AG’s Office said in May.
According to court documents, Lunney was arrested and booked into the Asotin County Jail during the summer of 2022 after he allegedly made threats to shoot up an elementary school and fair parade. He ultimately pled guilty to making a bomb threat and two counts of harassment and was sentenced to 20 months in prison.
On appeal, Lunney challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
“Because the superior court’s explanation of appellate rights being waived was confusing and inconsistent with both the statement on plea of guilty and the appellate rights that Lunney waived by pleading guilty, we grant the challenge. We remand for further proceedings, including the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea,” the Court ruled.
According to court documents, on July 9, 2022, Lunney threatened a mass shooting at an elementary school and a subsequent suicide. On July 16th and 17th, he sent his Department of Corrections community custody officer text messages confirming his plans. As a result, DOC transported Lunney to TriState Health for a voluntary evaluation by a Quality Behavior Health employee.
During the interview with Lunney, he mentioned a desire to commit mass murder.
“He explained a five-year plan to solve injustice by attending the Asotin County Fair Parade and opening gunfire. He stored weapons for this project in Nampa, Idaho. Lunney wished to live stream the massacre for others to see. Lunney also commented about stalking the person who reported his criminal offenses in a previous case. Lunney declared an intent to attack detention deputies in the Asotin County Jail. Finally, he disclosed an intention to kill himself after implementing his five-year plan and write two books that highlight the truth,” documents say.
On July 19, 2022, the State of Washington charged Lunney with two counts of felony harassment and one count of threat to bomb. On April 25, 2023, Lunney filed a motion to dismiss for failure to afford him a speedy trial, as required by CrR 3.3.
On May 16th, the State filed a notice of intent to seek an exceptional sentence above the standard range, which was followed by a second motion to dismiss by Lunney on May 22nd. On June 2nd, the trial court denied Lunney’s motions to dismiss.
Then, on June 8th, Lunney pled guilty to all three charges and signed a statement of defendant on plea of guilty. The plea form declared:
“I understand I have the following Important Rights and I Give them Up by Pleading Guilty.” (Read pages 3-4 for details HERE.)
On appeal, Lunney argued that the trial court, at sentencing, erroneously explained his limited right to appeal. He claimed he was prejudiced as a result of the court’s erroneous explanation of his right because he did not understand that, by pleading guilty, he would lose the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss under CrR 4.7(a) and CrR 8.3(b), court documents say, adding that he did not mention his motion to dismiss under CrR 3.3.
“Lunney asserts that, had he known he could not appeal the motion to dismiss by pleading guilty, he would not have done so. Therefore, according to Lunney, his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, rendering it invalid,” the ruling says. “An accused may raise, for the first time on appeal, a claim that he did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily plead guilty.”
Lunney conceded that he signed the plea statement and admitted to understanding the information.
“He told the superior court he understood the statement. Nevertheless, Lunney asserts confusion about his limited right to appeal. According to Lunney, by explaining, in response to his confusion, that he could appeal anything other than the finding of guilt after trial, the superior court conveyed erroneous information. As a result, Lunney did not understand that he lost, by pleading guilty, the right to appeal his motion to dismiss,” according to the ruling.
The State responded that the record does not indicate that Lunney sought to preserve the right to appeal the court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss.
“The State insists that this court could only speculate whether Lunney believed he could still appeal the motions after pleading guilty. Therefore, according to the State, Lunney fails to show prejudice. We agree with Lunney,” the ruling states.
The Court concludes that Lunney could have reasonably believed, because of the superior court’s comments, that he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
“The superior court stated that Lunney only waived the right to appeal a guilty verdict after trial. Denial of a motion to dismiss differs markedly from a finding of guilt. The statement on plea of guilty also warned Trevor Lunney of a limited right to appeal,” the ruling states. “The statement listed two examples of that limited right: (1) he forewent a right to appeal a finding of guilt after trial; and (2) he lost the right to appeal a sentence within the standard range.
The Court also says the statement did not otherwise caution Lunney of his limited right to appeal.
“No one advised him he could not appeal the motion to dismiss ruling Trevor Lunney need not show prejudice on appeal. Because an involuntary plea creates a presumption of prejudice in a direct appeal, a defendant challenging his guilty plea as involuntary on direct appeal need not show actual and substantial prejudice,” court documents say.
