State Of Washington v. Paul Scott Bickle, 48406-4

In February 2011 the Lewis County Superior Court sentenced Paul Scott Bickle to 68 months for multiple property offenses and ordered that sentence to run consecutive to a prior Whitman County sentence.
After the Lewis County sentence, Pierce County sentenced Bickle to 43 months and expressly ordered that sentence to run consecutive to all other sentences.
Bickle’s Lewis County judgment became final on February 25, 2015.
On October 30, 2015, Bickle filed a CrR 7.8 motion in Lewis County asking the court to modify his Lewis County sentence to run concurrent with the later Pierce County sentence.
The Lewis County court held a hearing on December 2, 2015, denied the CrR 7.8 motion, stating it lacked statutory authority to change a prior sentence to run concurrent with a subsequently imposed sentence.
Bickle appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed and exercised discretion to waive appellate costs due to Bickle’s indigency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Lewis County court had statutory authority to modify an earlier sentence to run concurrent with a later sentence imposed by another court	Bickle: former RCW 9.94A.589(3) does not prohibit a prior sentencing court from revisiting and making an earlier sentence concurrent after a subsequent court imposes a consecutive sentence	State: The statute vests discretion to order concurrent/consecutive only in the court pronouncing the current (later) sentence; the earlier court lacks such authority	The court held the Lewis County court lacked statutory authority to modify the earlier sentence; the later sentencing court controls whether sentences run concurrent or consecutive

State v. Bratton, 193 Wn. App. 561 (2016) (standard of review for CrR 7.8(b) motion)
State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 (2007) (application of incorrect legal analysis can constitute abuse of discretion)
State v. Solis-Diaz, 194 Wn. App. 129 (2016) (trial court abuses discretion when it fails to exercise sentencing discretion because it incorrectly believes it lacks authority)
State v. Barnett, 139 Wn.2d 462 (1999) (trial court may only impose a sentence authorized by statute)
State v. Watson, 146 Wn.2d 947 (2002) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Keller, 143 Wn.2d 267 (2001) (look first to plain language of statute)
State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106 (2007) (enforce unambiguous statutory language)
State v. Nolan, 141 Wn.2d 620 (2000) (appellate courts have broad discretion to award or deny appellate costs)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (2016) (ability to pay is a relevant factor in exercising discretion to award appellate costs)