State v. Petterson
| Decision Date | 21 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 48187-1-II,48187-1-II |
| Citation | 198 Wash.App. 673,394 P.3d 385 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Erik G. PETTERSON, Appellant. |
Thomas E. Weaver, Jr., Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 1056, Bremerton, WA, 98337-0221, for Appellant.
Mandy Lynn Rose, Attorney General of Washington, P.O. Box 40116, Olympia, WA, 98504-0116, for Respondent
Sutton, J.¶1 Erik Petterson appeals the superior court's order granting the Department of Corrections's (Department) motion to modify the conditions of Petterson's sentence under the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) and reinstating the condition that Petterson comply with conditions imposed by the Department.1 Here, Petterson's community custody conditions were erroneously modified in 2008 because the superior court did not have the authority to modify Petterson's community custody conditions; therefore, the superior court properly remedied the error by reinstating the condition at issue in 2015. The condition at issue is a mandatory condition of all community custody; therefore, it was appropriate for the superior court to reinstate it. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2 In 2002, Petterson pleaded guilty to child molestation in the first degree and was sentenced under SSOSA. Petterson was sentenced to 68 months confinement with 62 months suspended for the maximum term of life. As a condition of his suspended sentence, Petterson was placed on community custody and, among other conditions, required to comply with all conditions imposed by the Department. Petterson's treatment termination hearing was set for February 7, 2005.
¶3 On October 4, 2005, the superior court entered an order at the treatment termination hearing. The order terminated Petterson's SSOSA sentence and community custody. On December 5, 2006, the State filed a motion to amend the order to reinstate community custody and the Department's supervision in accordance with the requirements of SSOSA. The superior court granted the State's motion and entered an amended order reinstating lifetime community custody.
¶4 Petterson appealed the superior court's amended order. In 2008, in an unpublished opinion, we determined that the order terminating community custody was a scrivener's error and affirmed the superior court's order correcting the error and reinstating lifetime community custody.
¶5 Petterson then filed a motion to terminate community custody. The superior court did not terminate community custody, but entered an order (2008 order)2 modifying Petterson's community custody conditions to only impose two conditions: (1) the defendant shall obey all laws and (2) the defendant shall update the Department of any change in address or phone number.
¶6 In August 2015, the Department filed a motion to reinstate the SSOSA condition requiring an offender to comply with any conditions imposed by the Department. Prior to the 2015 motion, the Department had declined to take any position on the superior court's authority to modify community custody provisions; however, Petterson's community custody officer supported Petterson's motion to terminate community custody.
¶7 On September 16, 2015, the superior court entered its order (2015 order)3 granting the Department's motion. The superior court concluded that the court did not have the authority to modify the community custody conditions in the 2008 order. The superior court also concluded that compliance with conditions imposed by the Department was a mandatory condition and the superior court did not have the authority to remove that specific condition. Therefore, the superior court granted the Department's motion and reinstated the requirement that Petterson comply with additional community custody conditions imposed by the Department. Petterson appeals the superior court's 2015 order.
ANALYSIS
¶8 The issue before this court is whether the superior court erred by granting the Department's motion to modify Petterson's community custody provisions.4 Here, the superior court properly remedied the 2008 order in which the superior court modified the conditions of community custody without the authority to do so and reimposed a mandatory community custody condition. Accordingly, we affirm the 2015 order.
¶9 Conditions of community custody are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Valencia , 169 Wash.2d 782, 792-93, 239 P.3d 1059 (2010). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. State v. Dixon , 159 Wash.2d 65, 76, 147 P.3d 991 (2006). The superior court abuses its discretion if it reaches its decision by applying the wrong legal standard. Dixon , 159 Wash.2d at 76, 147 P.3d 991. "When we review whether a trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, we review de novo the choice of law and its application to the facts in the case." State v. Corona , 164 Wash.App. 76, 79, 261 P.3d 680 (2011).
¶10 Statutory interpretation is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. State v. Rice , 180 Wash.App. 308, 313, 320 P.3d 723 (2014) (citing State v. Franklin , 172 Wash.2d 831, 835, 263 P.3d 585 (2011) ). Our objective is to determine and give effect to the legislature's intent. Rice , 320 P.3d at 726. We give effect to the statute's plain language when it can be determined from the text. Rice , 320 P.3d at 726 (citing State v. Jones , 172 Wash.2d 236, 242, 257 P.3d 616 (2011) ). Statutes are interpreted to give effect to all language in them and to render no portion meaningless or superfluous. State v. J.P. , 149 Wash.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003).
¶11 To determine whether the superior court erred by entering the 2015 order we must examine the statute governing SOSSA, former RCW 9.94.670 (2001), and the statute governing community custody generally, former RCW 9.94A.715 and .720 (2001). Under SSOSA, if an offender charged with a sex offense qualifies for a sentencing alternative, the superior court may suspend the offender's sentence for the offender to engage in treatment.
Former RCW 9.94A.670(2) -(3). Former RCW 9.94A.670(4)(a)5 states that when the superior court suspends a sentence under SSOSA:
¶14 As an initial consideration, we hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the 2015 order because the 2015 order was necessary to correct the 2008 order which exceeded the superior court's authority. "After final judgment and sentencing, the court loses jurisdiction to the [Department of Corrections]." State v. Harkness , 145 Wash.App. 678, 685, 186 P.3d 1182 (2008). Sentences imposed under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA)9 "may be modified only if they meet the requirements of the SRA provisions relating directly to the modification of sentences."
State v. Shove , 113 Wash.2d 83, 89, 776 P.2d 132 (1989). Absent explicit authorization, the superior court lacks jurisdiction to modify an offender's sentence. Harkness , 145 Wash.App. at 685-86, 186 P.3d 1182 ; Shove , 113 Wash.2d at 88-89, 776 P.2d 132.
¶15 SSOSA only includes one provision explicitly authorizing the superior court to modify the offender's sentence: "At a treatment termination hearing the court may ... [m]odify conditions of community custody." Former RCW 9.94A.670(8). Here, the superior court's 2005...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Armstrong
-
State v. Petterson
...to remove it in 2008. CP at 54-64. The court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. CP at 142-46; State v. Petterson, 198 Wash.App. 673, 394 P.3d 385 (2017). The Court of Appeals held that the court did not have authority to modify any community custody conditions in 2008 be......
-
State v. Hoch
... ... altered only in those limited circumstances where the ... interests of justice most urgently require." ... Id. This is the superior court's only inherent ... authority to modify a sentence. See State v ... Petterson, 198 Wn.App. 673, 682-83, 394 P.3d 385 (2017) ... "Modification of a judgment is not appropriate merely ... because it appears, wholly in retrospect, that a different ... decision might have been preferable." Shove, ... 113 Wn.2d at 88 ... To ... ...
-
State v. Hoch
...most urgently require." Id. This is the superior court's only inherent authority to modify a sentence. See State v. Petterson, 198 Wn. App. 673, 682-83, 394 P.3d 385 (2017). "Modification of a judgment is not appropriate merely because it appears, wholly in retrospect, that a different deci......