State Of Washington, V Daniel Lee Rouse, 47589-8

In Sept 2014 the State filed a felony complaint in district court charging Rouse with felony violation of a protection (no‑contact) order; the district court made a probable cause finding.
An information was filed in superior court on Oct 16, 2014; Rouse was arraigned in superior court on Oct 20 and tried starting Dec 16. Rouse was detained pretrial.
At trial Rouse stipulated to two prior municipal convictions for violation of no‑contact orders; a jury convicted him of felony violation of a protection order.
At sentencing the State calculated an offender score of 8 by counting each prior municipal no‑contact violation as 2 points; the court accepted that calculation and imposed the 60‑month maximum.
Rouse appealed, arguing the offender‑score calculation was incorrect (each prior should be 1 point), and raised additional due process claims (jurisdiction, timely arraignment, time‑for‑trial and constitutional speedy‑trial violations).
The State conceded the offender‑score error; the court found the score was miscalculated, vacated the sentence, affirmed the conviction, and remanded for resentencing. Other due process claims were rejected.

Issue	Rouse's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing court miscalculated offender score	Prior municipal domestic‑violence no‑contact convictions are repetitive domestic violence and count 1 point each; court miscounted as 2 each	Court accepted 2 points each; State concedes error on appeal	Court: miscalculation occurred; sentence unauthorized; vacate and remand for resentencing
Whether superior court lacked jurisdiction because district court did not bind over after preliminary hearing	Superior court never obtained jurisdiction	District and superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction; probable cause finding in district court was sufficient	Court: no jurisdictional defect; superior court had jurisdiction
Whether arraignment was untimely under CrR 4.1(a)(1)	Arraignment not within 14 days of information	Information filed Oct 16; arraignment Oct 20—timely	Court: arraignment timely (4 days after filing)
Whether CrR 3.3 time‑for‑trial / speedy‑trial rights were violated	Rouse detained and spent time in custody before superior filing; objected to trial date; argues should have been tried sooner	State argued waiver; court finds objection timely and no CrR 3.3 violation because trial began within 60 days of superior arraignment	Court: no CrR 3.3 violation and no constitutional speedy‑trial violation; rules and higher constitutional threshold satisfied

In re Pers. Restraint of Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d 861 (2002) (sentence based on miscalculated offender score is unauthorized)
State v. Moeurn, 170 Wn.2d 169 (2010) (offender‑score calculations reviewed de novo)
State v. Ross, 152 Wn.2d 220 (2004) (remedy for miscalculated offender score is resentencing)
State v. Conwell, 141 Wn.2d 901 (2000) (rule application is question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d 813 (2013) (CrR 3.3 provides nonconstitutional timely‑trial right)
State v. Iniguez, 167 Wn.2d 273 (2009) (framework for reviewing constitutional speedy‑trial claims)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (constitutional speedy‑trial analysis framework)
State v. Carson, 128 Wn.2d 805 (1996) (trial within 60 days is not a constitutional mandate)