Opinion
Amended Opinion of July 14, 2000.
Thomas Edward Doyle, Attorney at Law, Hansville, WA.
Robert Alan Lund, Thurston Co. Dep. Pros. Atty., Olympia, WA.
ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ORDER AMENDING OPINION, AND ORDER DENYING STATE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Armstrong, CHIEF JUDGE.
The part published opinion in this case was filed on July 14, 2000. Upon the motions of the appellant and respondent for reconsideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that the respondent's motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. It is further
ORDERED that the appellant's motion for reconsideration is hereby granted, and the opinion previously filed on July 14, 2000, is hereby amended as follows:
Page 11, lines # 5 - 10 the following text shall be deleted:
However, possession of stolen property in the second degree does not encompass the same criminal conduct as the firearm thefts because the criminal intent is different. By statutory definition, possession of stolen property in the second degree does not include firearms. RCW 9A.56.160.Page 11, beginning at line # 5, the following text shall be inserted:
Tresenriter's conviction for possession of stolen property in the second degree also encompasses the same criminal conduct as the firearm thefts. Here, both crimes involve the same victim, Rezanka. And the parties do not dispute that Tresenriter's convictions for theft of a firearm and his conviction for possession of stolen property in the second degree were committed at the same time and place. Tresenriter also had the same objective criminal intent when he committed both crimes -- to deprive the owner, Rezanka, of his property. See State v. Haddock, 141 Wn.2d 103, 3 P.3d 733 (2000) (holding that convictions for theft of a firearm and for the possession of stolen property encompass the same course of criminal conduct).
Tresenriter's theft and possession of stolen property convictions stand but we remand to the trial court for resentencing of these convictions under RCW 9.94A.400(1)(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.