In Re The Post-sentence Review Of Gabriela Aragon Barraza
Opinion
FILED
FEB. 6,2014
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
In re Postsentence Review of: )
) No. 31606-8-111 )
)
)
GABRIELA ARAGON BARRAZA. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION )
FEARING, J. - In order to correct two perceived violations of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981(SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW, the Department of Corrections (DOC) seeks postsentence review of the Franklin County Superior Court judgment and sentence of Gabriela Aragon Barraza for her unlawful possession of methamphetamine. First, DOC contends that the sentencing court violated RCW 9.94A.589 by ordering Barraza's sentence for unlawful possession to run concurrently with an earlier sentence for a prior felony. Second, DOC contends that the sentencing court violated RCW 9.94A.505(6) by crediting Barraza 247 days served toward her unlawful possession sentence when she served part of that time for the prior felony. We agree and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
On April 24, 2008, Gabriela Aragon Barraza committed, in Benton County, a residential burglary in violation ofRCW 9A.52.025-a class B felony.
No. 31606-8-111 In re Postsentence Review ofBarraza
On April 15, 2012, Barraza, in neighboring Franklin County, unlawfully possessed methamphetamine in violation ofRCW 69.50.4013-a class C felony. Barraza pled guilty to both offenses. This postsentence review concerns the interrelation of Barraza's sentences for these two crimes.
On July 17,2008, Benton County Superior Court granted Barraza a special drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) sentence for the 2008 residential burglary. Based on her offender score, the standard range for sentencing was 63-84 months. Under RCW 9.94A.660, a DOSA sentence is calculated using the midpoint of the standard range-here, 73.5 months. The defendant serves up to half of the sentence in prison, and the remainder in community custody. RCW 9.94A.662. After her serving less than two years in prison, DOC released Barraza into community custody for work release in 2010.
On April 15,2012, Gabriela Barraza was arrested, in Franklin County, for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In part because of this arrest, DOC revoked Barraza's DOSA sentence. To serve the remainder of her sentence for residential burglary, Barraza was transferred to Benton County on May 1.
On December 10, DOC transferred Gabriela Barraza to Franklin County jail to face the April 15, 2012 charge of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Barraza pled guilty on January 15,2013. On January 22, after 44 days in Franklin County jail, the Franklin County court sentenced Barraza to 12 months plus 1 day confinement. The
No.31606-8-II1 In re Postsentence Review ofBarraza
Franklin County court credited Barraza 247 days served toward her sentence for unlawful possession. By handwritten notation, in parentheses, the Franklin County court explained that "time served in the department of corrections is included." Postsentence Pet., Ex. I at 7a of 10.
DOC then regained custody of Barraza on January 24. Upon reviewing the January 22,2013 judgment and sentence, DOC believed that the Franklin County court erred in two ways. First, the sentencing court ordered the Franklin and Benton County sentences to run concurrently-violating RCW 9.94A.589. Second, the Franklin County court credited Barraza 247 days served for her unlawful possession conviction, but her time served for only that charge was the 44 days she spent in Franklin County jail.
DOC must first attempt to correct any perceived sentencing errors through the trial court. RCW 9.94A.585(7). To this end, on January 29,2013, DOC e-mailed the prosecutor and the defense attorney requesting an amendment to the Franklin County judgment and sentence. On March 28, DOC sent the trial court and all parties a letter asking the Franklin County court to amend its judgment and sentence. DOC received no response to either. DOC then initiated this action pursuant to RCW 9.94A.585(7) and RAP 16.18.
With the two sentences running concurrently, Barraza's early release date was May 9. According to DOC, "Ifher sentences were running fully consecutively, her early release date would be approximately January 14,2014." Postsentence Pet. at 4.
No. 31606-8-III In re Postsentence Review ofBarraza
ANALYSIS
Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences Under RAP 16.18, "The Department of Corrections may petition the Court of Appeals for review of a sentence committing an offender to the custody or jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. The review shall be limited to errors of law." Accord RCW 9.94A.585(7). Whether a sentencing court exceeded its statutory authority under the SRA is an issue oflaw this court reviews de novo. State v. Murray, 118 Wn. App. 518,521, 77 P.3d 1188 (2003). To the extent this issue implicates questions of statutory interpretation, review is also de novo. State v. Eaton, 168 Wn.2d 476,480,229 P.3d 704 (2010). A court may impose only a sentence that is authorized by statute. In re Postsentence Review ofLeach, 161 Wn.2d 180, 184, 163 P.3d. 782 (2007). Ifa sentence is incongruent with statutory authority, this court reverses and remands for resentencing. State v. Hale, 94 Wn. App. 46,53,56,971 P.2d 88 (1999).
The first statute raised by DOC is RCW 9.94A.589(2)(a), which reads:
"[W]henever a person while under sentence for conviction ofa felony commits another felony and is sentenced to another term of confinement, the latter term shall not begin until expiration of all prior terms." (Emphasis added.) Here, Franklin County Superior Court ordered Barraza's unlawful possession and residential burglary sentences to run concurrently. But Barraza committed unlawful possession "while under sentence for conviction ofa felony." In State v. Roberts, 76 Wn. App. 290, 291, 884 P.2d 628 (1994),
No. 31606-8-111 In re Postsentence Review ofBarraza
this court held that persons under community supervision were "under sentence of felony" for purposes ofRCW 9.94A.589(2)(a), then codified at former RCW 9.94A.400(2). This is the case here. Barraza was still in community custody when she committed unlawful possession in Franklin County. Given that both crimes are felonies, RCW 9.94A.589(2)(a) applies.
Because Barraza committed unlawful possession while "under sentence of felony"
for residential burglary, she cannot begin to serve her Franklin County sentence until after she serves the entirety of her Benton County sentence. Under RCW 9.94A.589(2)(a), the two sentences must run consecutively.
Barraza seeks to validate the concurrent sentences by arguing that the sentencing court imposed an exceptional sentence under RCW 9.94A.535. Nevertheless, the January 22, 2013 judgment and sentence has a section regarding exceptional sentences. In that section, the sentencing court made no indication that it was imposing an exceptional sentence. Further, in order to impose an exceptional sentence, the court must "set forth the reasons for its decision in written findings of fact and conclusions of law." RCW 9.94A.535. The Franklin County court entered no such findings or conclusions.
Time Served
The second statute raised by DOC is RCW 9.94A.505(6), which reads: "The sentencing court shall give the offender credit for all confinement time served before the sentencing if that confinement was solely in regard to the offense for which the offender
No.31606-8-III In re Postsentence Review ofBarraza
is being sentenced." The same standard of review applies to this issue. If the January 22, 2013 judgment and sentence is incongruent with statutory authority, this court reverses and remands for resentencing. Hale, 94 Wn. App. at 53, 56.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In Re The Post-sentence Review Of Gabriela Aragon Barraza (In Re The Post-sentence Review Of Gabriela Aragon Barraza) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.