State v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 30 December 2014
• Docket Number: Nos. 44393–7–II,44396–1–II.,s. 44393–7–II
• Citation: 344 P.3d 1220,185 Wash.App. 338
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Adam Chief LEWIS, Respondent.

185 Wash.App. 338

344 P.3d 1220

STATE of Washington, Appellant

v.Adam Chief LEWIS, Respondent.

Nos. 44393–7–II

44396–1–II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

Dec. 30, 2014.

Anne Mowry Cruser, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, Vancouver, WA, for Appellant.

John A. Hays, Attorney at Law, Longview, WA, for Respondent.

Opinion

LEE, J.

¶ 1 The State appeals Adam Chief Lewis' sentence on two separate cases, arguing that the trial court improperly calculated the amount of credit for time served. The trial court gave Lewis (1) credit for time served that he had previously received credit for in an unrelated resolved case and (2) credit for time served on an unrelated judgment and sentence. Because Lewis received credit for time served more than once, we reverse and remand to the trial court to recalculate the amount of credit for time served.

FACTS

¶ 2 On May 13, 2011, Lewis was arrested in Clark County for numerous crimes. On May 26, 2011, Lewis was charged with first degree burglary and first degree robbery under cause number 11–1–00815–1 (burglary charges) and first degree burglary, two counts of first degree assault, two counts of first degree kidnapping, two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm under cause number 11–1–00816–9 (assault charges). Lewis remained incarcerated in the Clark County Jail.

¶ 3 On August 10, 2011, while in pretrial incarceration for the burglary charges and assault charges, Lewis was charged with failure to register as a sex offender (cause number 11–1–01336–7). Lewis pleaded guilty to the failure to register as a sex offender charge on August 31, 2012, and was sentenced to 50 months' confinement. The trial court calculated his credit for time served on the failure to register conviction starting on August 10, 2011 (387 days). Lewis began serving his sentence for the failure to register conviction on August 31, 2012.

¶ 4 Lewis pleaded guilty to the burglary charges on October 26, 2012, and pleaded guilty to the assault charges on November 5, 2012.¹ Lewis was sentenced on both the burglary charges and the assault charges on December 14, 2012. At sentencing for the burglary charges and assault charges, Lewis requested that his credit for time served be calculated based on the entire time he had been incarcerated since his original arrest on May 13, 2011 (581 days). The trial court agreed with Lewis and calculated his credit for time served at 581 days. The State filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.

¶ 5 The State appeals the calculation of Lewis's credit for time served. The State argues that Lewis should have received credit for only the period of time from his arrest until he was charged with failure to register.

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 The State argues that the trial court erred because the unambiguous language of the statute governing calculation of time served, RCW 9.94A.505(6), limits credit for time served to time served on the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced. Lewis argues that the trial court properly calculated his credit for time served based on the constitutional principles of equal protection underlying the statute codifying the right to credit for time served. Based on both RCW 9.94A.505(6) and the constitutional principles underlying credit for time served, the trial court miscalculated Lewis' credit for time served; at the time of sentencing, Lewis was not entitled to credit for any time served after August 10, 2011.

¶ 7 Here, we are required to address a question of statutory interpretation and application of a constitutional principle. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wash.2d 256, 263, 226 P.3d 131, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 928, 131 S.Ct. 318, 178 L.Ed.2d 207 (2010). Similarly, we review constitutional issues de novo. State v. Vance, 168 Wash.2d 754, 759, 230 P.3d 1055 (2010).

¶ 8 A defendant is entitled to credit for time served based on constitutional principles of due process and equal protection. Reanier v. Smith, 83 Wash.2d 342, 346, 517 P.2d 949 (1974). And RCW 9.94A.505(6) “ ‘simply represents the codification of the constitutional requirement that an offender is entitled to credit for time served prior to sentencing.’ ” In re Pers. Restraint of Costello, 131 Wash.App. 828, 833, 129 P.3d 827 (2006) (quoting State v. Williams, 59 Wash.App. 379, 382, 796 P.2d 1301 (1990) ). Our Supreme Court recently explained the constitutional principles underlying credit for time served:

In [Reanier, 83 Wash.2d at 346, 517 P.2d 949 ], this court held that “an accused person, unable to or precluded from posting bail or otherwise procuring his release from confinement prior to trial” was entitled to credit for time served upon sentencing. The court based its decision on “principles of due process and equal protection” and on “potential implications of double jeopardy.” [Reanier, 83 Wash.2d at 347, 517 P.2d 949 ]. It reasoned that a contrary decision would result in two separate sets of sentencing ranges—one for “those unable to procure pretrial release from confinement and another for those fortunate enough to obtain such release”—and concluded that such a sentencing regime would not survive rational basis review. [Reanier, 83 Wash.2d at 346–47, 517 P.2d 949 ]....

The Reanier decision absolutely bars the legislature from distinguishing between rich defendants and poor defendants for the purpose of credit for time served, but the legislature remains free to draw many other distinctions.

State v. Medina, 180 Wash.2d 282, 292–93, 324 P.3d 682 (2014).

¶ 9 The legislature has codified the procedure for calculation of credit for time served in RCW 9.94A.505(6). RCW 9.94A.505(6) states:

The sentencing court shall give the offender credit for all confinement time served before the sentencing if that confinement was solely in regard to the offense for which the offender is being sentenced.

Our objective in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent. State v. Evans, 177 Wash.2d 186, 192, 298 P.3d 724 (2013). We begin with the plain language of the statute. Evans, 177 Wash.2d at 192, 298 P.3d 724. If the plain language of the statute is unambiguous, our inquiry ends. State v. Armendariz, 160 Wash.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007).

¶ 10 The Sentencing Reform Act does not generally authorize giving credit for time served on other sentences. State v. Watson, 63 Wash.App. 854, 859, 822 P.2d 327 (1992). Under the plain language of the statute, credit for time served refers solely to the offense for which the offender received a sentence. Watson, 63 Wash.App. at 860, 822 P.2d 327. Our courts have been clear that statute governing credit for time served entitles a defendant to “nothing more than the constitution require [s].” State v. Williams, 59 Wash.App. 379, 382, 796 P.2d 1301 (1990). Neither RCW 9.94A.505(6) nor the constitution allow a defendant to receive “twice the amount of credit for the time he or she actually served in jail while awaiting trial and sentencing.” Williams, 59 Wash.App. at 381, 796 P.2d 1301.

¶ 11 In Williams, the defendant was charged with second degree robbery, and while awaiting trial he was detained pursuant to suspension of his parole on a previous charge. 59 Wash.App. at 380, 796 P.2d 1301. At sentencing on the robbery, the defendant requested credit for the 70 days of presentence confinement. Williams, 59 Wash.App. at 381, 796 P.2d 1301. The trial court denied the request because the 70 days of confinement would be credited toward the sentence he had received on the prior charge. Williams, 59 Wash.App. at 382, 796 P.2d 1301. On appeal the defendant argued that he was entitled to credit for time served under former RCW 9.94A.120(12) (1998)² because “but for” the robbery charge he would not have been incarcerated. Williams, 59 Wash.App. at 381, 796 P.2d 1301. The court noted that such an interpretation would lead to defendants being entitled to “twice the amount of credit for the time he or she actually served in jail while awaiting trial and sentencing,” a result the court labeled absurd. Williams, 59 Wash.App. at 381, 796 P.2d 1301.

¶ 12 With the foregoing principles in mind, we turn to the trial court's calculation of Lewis's credit for time served. As an initial matter, there are three distinct time periods that factor into the calculation of Lewis's credit for time served. The first period is from May 13, 2011 (the date Lewis was originally arrested and started serving time in pretrial confinement for the burglary charges and assault charges) until August 9, 2011. The second period is from August 10, 2011 (the date Lewis was charged with failure to register as a sex offender and began serving time in pretrial confinement for the burglary charges, assault charges, and failure to register charges) until August 31, 2012 (the date Lewis was sentenced on the failure to register charge). The third period is from September 1, 2012 (the date Lewis began serving time for the failure to register conviction) until December 14, 2012 (the date Lewis was sentenced on the burglary charges and assault charges).

¶ 13 Under the plain language of the statute, Lewis would not be entitled to credit for any of the time he served prior to his sentencing on December 14. RCW 9.94A.505(6) requires calculation of time served to be limited to confinement solely in regard to the offense for which the offender is being sentenced. Here, for example, the sentencing court would start with determining the sentence for a single offense such as the burglary charge. Then, the statute requires the sentencing court to determine how much time the offender spent incarcerated solely on that offense. In this case, Lewis did not spend any time incarcerated solely on any offense for which he was sentenced. Therefore, if this court were to strictly apply the statute, the sentencing court erred by giving Lewis credit for any time served.

¶ 14 However, applying the statute in such a manner simply does not...