State v. Ramos, 246 P.3d 811

Ramos and Gaitan, both 14, murdered a family during a 1993 robbery; Gaitan killed two adults and an 12-year-old, Ramos killed a 6-year-old.
Ramos pleaded guilty in adult court to three counts of first degree felony murder and one count of first degree murder after waiving a declination hearing through counsel.
In 2006 Ramos appealed a juvenile court declination order; the Court of Appeals dismissed, but this court remanded for reconsideration.
On remand, the Court of Appeals held the term of community placement vague and remanded to the trial court to specify the exact term and any special terms; resentencing was not required.
The State petitioned for review; this court held the remand requires the trial court to exercise discretion and permit Ramos to be present at resentencing.
The dispositive issue is whether the remand to specify special terms of community placement constitutes discretionary action requiring Ramos’s presence at resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the remand authorize discretionary sentencing powers?	Ramos.	Ramos.	Remand requires the trial court to exercise discretion.
Does remand for specifying special terms trigger the right to be present at resentencing?	Ramos has right to be present when discretion is exercised.	Remand on ministerial correction may not require presence.	Ramos must be present and heard at resentencing.
Is resentencing required or only ministerial correction?	Remand may require new sentencing with discretion.	Only ministerial correction of terms is needed.	Remand requires sentencing with exercise of discretion; resentencing is required.

State v. Broadaway, 133 Wash.2d 118, 942 P.2d 363 (1997) (remand for ministerial correction of community placement terms; discretion may be involved)
State v. Ramos, 168 Wash.2d 1025, 230 P.3d 576 (2010) (remand to reconsider Broadaway framework in community placement)
State v. Rupe, 108 Wash.2d 734, 743 P.2d 210 (1987) (constitutional right to be present at sentencing)
State v. Davenport, 140 Wash.App. 925, 167 P.3d 1221 (2007) (ministerial remand corrections may not require presence)