State v. NelsonState v. Nelson
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Grosse
— Fоllowing his conviction for one count of first degree manslaughter, the court sentenced
Facts
Nelson was charged with one count of first degree murder. A jury found him guilty of first degree manslaughter while armed with a deadly weapon. At sentencing, the court imposed a 150-month standard range sentence, which
Section 4.7 of Nеlson’s judgment and sentence contained boilerplate language stating that community placement was ordered for any “serious violent offense” and for “any offense with a deadly weapon finding” for “the maximum period of time authorized by law.” A box in Section 4.7 was checked indicating that appendix H was attached and incorporated. Appendix H, which was signed by the sentencing judge, contained the following preprinted language, which was based on
4.5 Community Placement: Defendant additionally is sentenced on convictions herein, for each sex offense and serious violent offense committed on or after 1 July 1990 to cоmmunity placement for two years or up to the period of earned release awarded pursuant toRCW 9.94A.150(1) and (2) whichever is longer and on conviction hеrein for . . . any crime against a person where it is determined in accordance withRCW 9.94A.125 that the defendant or an accomplice was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of commission ... to a one-year term of community placement.
Decision
On appeal, Nelson contends that the sentencing court erred by failing to specify a definite term of community placement. He argues that the boilerplate language used in the judgment and sentence and aрpendix H does nothing more than set forth the potential statutory periods of community placement and therefore fails to comply with the requirements of State v. Broadaway1 and State v. Jones2 (hereinafter referred to as Lonnie Jones). Under the specific facts of this case, we agree.3
In Broadaway, the only reference to community place
Here, the sentence does not contain a provision for a one-year term of community placement imposed by the court as the statute requires. In addition to its statutory obligation the trial court should expressly provide in the sentence for the precise term of community placement because in many cases it will assist а trial court in assessing the overall sentence for the defendant, for example, whether to impose a sentence within the standard range. It will also allоw a defendant to appeal an erroneous sentence of community placement before serving the term of incarceration.[5]
In Lonnie Jones, the cоurt found that a boilerplate provision in the judgment and sentence ordering community placement “ ‘for the maximum period of time authorized by law’ ” was at odds with language in appendix H that appeared to impose a two-year
This court recently addressed similar issues in State v. Jones8 (hereinafter referred to as Maurice Jones) in which the defendant was convicted of selling cocaine. At sentenc
But contrary to the State’s suggestion, we find Maurice Jones distinguishable because the applicable period of community placement in that case was readily apparent from the face of the sentеncing documents. In this case, however, the period of community placement cannot he determined merely by reviewing the judgment and sentence or its appendices.
The terms of Nelson’s community placement are immediately ambiguous because the preprinted language of appendix H states the applicable community placement period could be based on either a conviction for a “serious violent offense” or the “deadly wеapon” finding. This ambiguity can be resolved only by going outside the sentencing documents and consulting
Thus, the applicable period of community placement can be determined only after calculating that Nelson’s maximum potential earned еarly release award is less than two years. Unlike the circumstances in Maurice Jones, we cannot say that the boilerplate language of appendix H “made clеar” that the fixed term of Nelson’s community placement was two years.12
As the Broadaway court noted, the use of the actual term of community placement on the sentencing documents is important because it may assist the sentencing court in assessing the overall sentence and permits the defendant to appeal an erroneous term of community placement before serving the term of incarceration.13 But knowledge of the actual term of community placement is equally important at the time the defendant is required to comply with the conditions of community placement. In some cases, this will not occur until many years after sentencing. At that point, the interested parties should not have to search through an oral decision or years of statutory amendments in order to ascertain the precise term of community placement when, as here, that term
We recognize that there may be instances when the defendant’s potential earned early release award is greater than thе fixed period of community placement specified in
Agid, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.
Notes
State v. Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118, 942 P.2d 363 (1997).
State v. Jones, 93 Wn. App. 14, 968 P.2d 2 (1998) (Lonnie Jones).
The State argues that Nelson cannot challenge the term of community placement for the first time on appeal. We disagree. An appellate court has the duty to
Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d at 122.
Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d at 135.
Lonnie Jones, 93 Wn. App. at 18-19.
Lonnie Jones, 93 Wn. App. at 19.
State v. Jones, 96 Wn. App. 649, 980 P.2d 791 (1999) (Maurice Jones).
Maurice Jones, 96 Wn. App. at 653.
Maurice Jones, 96 Wn. App. at 652-53.
See Maurice Jones, 96 Wn. App. at 653.
Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d at 135.