State v. Soto, 309 P.3d 596

David Soto convicted after bench trial of first-degree animal cruelty (class C felony) and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm; the court found he was armed when committing the animal cruelty offense.
Trial court imposed concurrent terms for the convictions and an 18-month consecutive firearm enhancement under RCW 9.94A.533 for the animal cruelty conviction.
Animal cruelty by the means charged (intentional substantial pain/physical injury/killing causing undue suffering) is unranked under the Sentencing Reform Act; no seriousness level is assigned in RCW 9.94A.515, so no standard range on Table 1/RCW 9.94A.510 or the drug grid exists.
When an offense is unranked, sentencing is governed by RCW 9.94A.505(2)(b), limiting standard determinate sentences to one year unless an exceptional sentence is justified.
Soto appealed the firearm enhancement as unauthorized for an unranked felony; he also challenged trial-court findings about his present or future ability to pay legal financial obligations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Soto)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether RCW 9.94A.533 firearm enhancement applies to unranked felonies	RCW 9.94A.533(1) limits the statute to standard sentence ranges determined by RCW 9.94A.510 or 9.94A.517, so it does not reach unranked offenses	Text in subsection (3) and (3)(f) referring to “any felony” or “all felony crimes” shows legislative intent to apply enhancements to all felonies, ranked or unranked	Enhancement does not apply to unranked offenses; 18‑month firearm enhancement for Soto’s animal cruelty conviction reversed and stricken
Whether trial court’s finding of present or likely future ability to pay LFOs was supported	Soto: the record lacked evidence supporting finding of present or future ability to pay	State: (argued below that findings were sufficient)	Court directed exclusion of any finding of present or future ability to pay because record lacked support

State v. Bryan, 93 Wn.2d 177 (recognizes sentencing as legislative power)
Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1 (plain‑meaning rule in statutory interpretation)
In re Det. of Williams, 147 Wn.2d 476 (expressio unius canon of statutory construction)
State v. Taylor, 97 Wn.2d 724 (courts should not supply omitted legislative language)
State v. Gurske, 155 Wn.2d 134 (concurring assumption that RCW 9.94A.533 does not address unranked felonies)
State v. Rainford, 86 Wn. App. 431 (assumption that enhancements under RCW 9.94A.533 do not apply to unranked felonies)