Post Sentence Petition Of Anthony Lucio
35065-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- In July 2016 Anthony Lucio was charged with attempted malicious mischief (public service interruption), assault of a police officer, and obstructing an officer; he later pleaded guilty to attempted malicious mischief in the first degree and to criminal mischief while armed.
- The judgment and sentence imposed concurrent terms: 20 months for attempted malicious mischief and 12 months for criminal mischief, plus a 12‑month community custody term attached to the criminal mischief conviction.
- The Department of Corrections (DOC) reviewed the judgment and concluded criminal mischief is not eligible for community custody and filed a post‑sentence petition under RCW 9.94A.585(7) seeking correction.
- Lucio agreed with DOC on the ineligibility issue and separately argued the combined confinement plus community custody exceeded statutory maximums; the State opposed DOC and defended the community custody term.
- The Court of Appeals addressed (1) whether Lucio could raise his separate sentencing challenge in DOC’s petition and (2) whether criminal mischief (as charged/entered here) may carry community custody when the judgment indicates the crime was "against a person."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lucio may press his separate challenge to community custody in DOC's post‑sentence petition | Lucio: He may raise same‑subject relief here to vacate community custody and argue total punishment exceeds statutory maximum | DOC/State: DOC's petition is limited to errors of law raised by DOC; offender may not add new independent claims in that proceeding | Court: No — offender cannot inject a separate legal challenge into DOC's statutorily authorized post‑sentence petition; Lucio must pursue other remedies |
| Whether criminal mischief supports imposition of community custody under RCW 9.94A.701(3)(a) (crimes against persons) | DOC: Because the legislature amended the statutory name from "riot" to "criminal mischief" but did not update the cross‑reference list, criminal mischief is not a listed crime against a person and is ineligible | State: The 2013 renaming did not change the substance or community custody eligibility; legislative intent (and later 2017 amendment) shows criminal mischief should be treated as eligible when "against a person" | Court: Yes — criminal mischief (if "against a person") is eligible for community custody; here the judgment explicitly ordered community custody as "against a person," so the term stands |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sentence of Chatman, 59 Wn. App. 258 (1990) (describing DOC’s dilemma when discovering sentencing errors and purpose of review statute)
- Dress v. Department of Corrections, 168 Wn. App. 319 (2012) (explaining DOC’s authority to petition Court of Appeals for alleged sentencing errors)
- State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315 (1995) (rejecting form‑over‑substance statutory constructions)
- In re Marriage of Schneider, 173 Wn.2d 353 (2011) (statutory interpretation focuses on legislative intent)
- State v. Jimenez, 200 Wn. App. 48 (2017) (on principles of statutory construction and interpretation)