Opinion
No. 61136-4-I.
December 22, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-8-04457-8, Carol A. Schapira, J., entered January 18, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
T.N. appeals his juvenile court conviction for first degree possession of stolen property. His sole argument on appeal is that the court erred in failing to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by CrR 3.6. But the trial court did enter written findings and conclusions, albeit after T.N. had filed his opening brief. In State v. Byrd, 83 Wn. App 509, 512, 922 P.2d 168 (1996), we explained that "[e]ven where the court fails to enter CrR 3.6 findings and conclusions until after the appellant's opening brief is filed, we will reverse only if the appellant can establish that he or she was prejudiced by delay, or that the findings and conclusions were tailored to meet the issues presented in the brief." Because T.N. has not alleged any prejudice or tailoring despite an opportunity to do so in a reply brief, we affirm.