State Of Washington v. Janet L. Gleason, 49179-6

Janet Gleason pleaded guilty to: possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver (Sept. 2015), residential burglary and related property crimes (Oct. 2015), and bail jumping (after failing to appear). Sentencing on all matters occurred June 15, 2016.
Statement of probable cause and a co-defendant’s statement indicated the burglary targeted the county prosecutor’s home as revenge for prosecuting Gleason’s son; Gleason’s plea did not admit a revenge motive.
Gleason submitted a DOSA (Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative) evaluation but the State claimed she failed to meet an agreed condition (help recover stolen property) and opposed DOSA; the prosecutor (victim) gave an oral impact statement asserting the burglary was revenge and not drug-related.
The trial court denied DOSA, citing the burglary’s revenge motive and declining to grant DOSA while also imposing a consecutive sentence for the bail jumping conviction.
On appeal the State conceded the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences for convictions entered/sentenced the same day without written findings supporting an exceptional sentence; Gleason challenged the court’s consideration of unadmitted facts under the real facts doctrine but did not lodge a timely, specific objection at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may run sentences consecutive for convictions entered/sentenced the same day without exceptional-sentence findings	State conceded trial court erred to run sentences consecutively without findings	Gleason argued consecutive sentence was improper	Court accepted State’s concession: concurrent sentences required absent exceptional-sentence findings; reverse and remand for resentencing
Whether court violated the real-facts doctrine by relying on unadmitted facts (DOSA evaluation, victim’s statement) to deny DOSA	Gleason argued court relied on facts (revenge motive) not admitted in plea, implicating real-facts limits	State argued facts were in the DOSA evaluation and victim statement; also noted Gleason did not object or seek an evidentiary hearing	Court declined to review because Gleason failed to raise a timely, specific objection at sentencing; DOSA denial affirmed
Whether resentencing must occur before a different judge	Gleason requested resentencing before a different judge, based on alleged real-facts violation	State opposed new judge; argued remand only for correction of sentencing error	Court denied new-judge request because it did not remand on the real-facts issue; only resentencing required for concurrent sentences

In re Pers. Restraint of Finstad, 177 Wn.2d 501 (explains "current offense" for concurrent/consecutive sentencing)
State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707 (requires timely and specific objection to preserve real-facts doctrine claim)
State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333 (same preservation requirement for sentencing objections)
State v. Reynolds, 80 Wn. App. 851 (discusses real-facts doctrine limits on sentencing information)