State Of Washington, V Waylon James Hubbard
49029-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- In 2004 Hubbard pleaded guilty to second-degree possession of stolen property and was sentenced to 30 days (15 days converted to 120 hours community restitution) and LFOs.
- DOC closed Hubbard’s supervision in 2005; clerk certified LFOs paid and Hubbard sought a certificate of discharge under RCW 9.94A.637(1)(c) on April 6, 2016.
- Hubbard submitted a supervisor’s declaration (PACE site manager) asserting he completed 120 restitution hours (records lost when PACE closed in 2011) and DOC paperwork showing partial completion while under supervision.
- Superior court credited the declaration, found Hubbard completed all sentence conditions as of February 25, 2013, and granted a certificate of discharge with that effective date.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that Hubbard completed restitution, (2) improper use of a nunc pro tunc entry, and (3) that the effective date should be the date the court received notice/verification, not the date the offender actually completed conditions.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hubbard's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Hubbard completed restitution | Evidence insufficient to prove completion | Declaration and clerk certification suffice | Findings supported by substantial evidence; certificate proper |
| Nunc pro tunc use | Superior court improperly entered nunc pro tunc relief | Court did not use nunc pro tunc; it set effective date by statute | No nunc pro tunc error; court did not attempt to correct a prior clerical act |
| Proper effective date of certificate under RCW 9.94A.637(1)(c) | Effective date is when court receives clerk notice and adequate verification | Effective date should be date offender actually satisfied conditions | Effective date is when court receives both clerk notice and adequate verification; remand to correct date |
| Consistency with RCW subsections and potential absurdity | All subsections require court receipt of notice/verification; no conflict | (Argued subsections (a)/(b) allow automatic entitlement on satisfaction) | Statute’s plain language controls; offender’s responsibility to verify under (c); courts may not issue earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d 242 (review standard for findings and conclusions)
- State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761 (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal)
- State v. Hendrickson, 165 Wn.2d 474 (limitations on nunc pro tunc relief)
- State v. Petrich, 94 Wn.2d 291 (definition of nunc pro tunc entries)
- State v. Porter, 188 Wn. App. 735 (Division One holding effective date is court notice date)
- State v. Johnson, 148 Wn. App. 33 (Division One holding effective date is court notice date)
- State v. Costich, 152 Wn.2d 463 (statutory interpretation presumption that legislature means what it says)