Opinion
No. 55188-4-I.
September 17, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-1-01406-5, Sharon S. Armstrong, J., entered October 15, 2004.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony Kinsey appeals the exceptional sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to charges of attempting to elude and vehicular assault. The sentence, which took the form of consecutive standard range sentences, was based on the superior court's finding that the multiple offense policy resulted in a presumptive sentence that was clearly too lenient. Kinsey contends the court's finding and sentence were unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2431, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004). He is correct.
In a series of recent decisions, our State Supreme Court ruled that such sentences, including exceptional sentences imposed in the form of consecutive sentences, are constitutionally invalid. State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 110 P.3d 192 (2005); In re Pers. Restraint of VanDelft, 158 Wn.2d 731, 147 P.3d 573 (2006). The Court also ruled that the 2005 statutory amendments authorizing such sentences do not apply when, as here, the defendant pled guilty prior to the effective date of the amendments. State v. Pillatos, 159 Wn.2d 459, 150 P.3d 1130 (2007).
The State concedes that Hughes, VanDelft and Pillatos control this case and expressly declines to argue harmless error. The State also concedes that if the United States Supreme Court does not grant certiorari in VanDelft, the matter should be remanded for resentencing. The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in VanDelft, Washington v. VanDelft, U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2876, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1172 (2007). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing. We express no opinion on Kinsey's claim that the 2007 amendments to the exceptional sentence statutes do not apply to this case.
Kinsey's conclusory Statement of Additional Grounds for Review fails to demonstrate any error.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.