State Of Washington, V. Aaron Andrew Lang

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: January 28, 2025
• Docket: 59126-0
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

January 28, 2025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59126-0-II

Respondent,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION AARON ANDREW LANG,

Appellant.

PRICE, J. — Aaron A. Lang appeals the conditions of his sentence for communicating with

a minor for immoral purposes. Lang contends his judgment and sentence contains a scrivener’s

error. The judgment and sentence limits his contact with minors except for his own biological

children when, according to Lang, the trial court intended the exception to permit contact with all

minor children (not just biological children) being raised in his household. We remand to the trial

court to clarify or modify the condition restricting Lang’s contact with minors.

FACTS

A jury found Lang guilty of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. It was

established during trial that there were three minor children in Lang’s household—one biological

child who was 17 years old and two non-biological children (Lang’s wife’s 14-year-old daughter

who Lang had raised since birth and Lang’s niece who was brought into the household as a baby).

At sentencing, Lang requested that the trial court allow him to have contact “with his own

minor children.” Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) (Dec. 15, 2023) at 8. The trial court orally said No. 59126-0-II

that Lang not be allowed to have any contact with minors except for “his own biological children.”

VRP (Dec. 15, 2023) at 11. The same language allowing contact with Lang’s own biological

children was also included in the judgment and sentence.

Lang appeals.

ANALYSIS

Lang argues that the condition in the judgment and sentence allowing contact with only his

own biological children was a scrivener’s error because the trial court actually intended to allow

Lang to have contact with all the children in his household. The State does not object to remanding

to the trial court for clarification or modification of the condition. We remand to the trial court to

clarify or modify the condition.

A scrivener’s error is a clerical mistake that, when amended, would correctly convey the

trial court’s intention as expressed in the record at trial. State v. Davis, 160 Wn. App. 471, 478,

248 P.3d 121 (2011). The remedy for a scrivener’s error in a judgment and sentence is to remand

to the trial court for correction. State v. Makekau, 194 Wn. App. 407, 421, 378 P.3d 577 (2016).

Here, in both the trial court’s oral ruling and the judgment and sentence, the exception to

restricting contact with minors was limited to Lang’s biological children. However, the evidence

in the record established that Lang was considered to be the father to several children that were

not his biological children, and Lang specifically requested permission to have contact with all his

minor children, not just his biological children. With nothing in the record to suggest that the trial

court intended to differentiate between biological children and the others in the household, it is

plausible the language in the judgment and sentence is a scrivener’s error.

2 No. 59126-0-II

Because the record is unclear as to the trial court’s intent, and the State has no objection to

remand, we remand to the trial court to clarify its intent and for correction if necessary. If the

reference to biological children was a scrivener’s error, the trial court may correct the error without

resentencing. See State v. Wemhoff, 24 Wn. App. 2d 198, 202, 519 P.3d 297 (2022) (Correction

of a scrivener’s error does not require resentencing.).

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.

PRICE, J. We concur:

LEE, P.J.

GLASGOW, J.