Opinion
No. 27325-3-III.
May 5, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 05-1-03593-6, Maryann C. Moreno, J., entered April 16, 2007.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished opinion per Kulik, J., concurred in by Schultheis, C.J., and Sweeney, J.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Marcus L. Jacquette pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder. The court imposed a 123-month term of imprisonment and ordered that the sentence be served in Nevada or any state other than Washington or California. The Department of Corrections (DOC) appeals the placement of restrictions on Mr. Jacquette's sentence.
We reverse and remand for resentencing because DOC has the sole authority to determine the state correctional facility where Mr. Jacquette will be placed.
FACTS
Mr. Jacquette pleaded guilty to second degree murder. The trial court imposed 123 months' confinement. The court also ordered that the sentence "shall be served in Nevada, or [a] state other than Washington or California, due to security risk regarding safety of defendant." Ex. 1, at 6.
The county jail sent Mr. Jacquette directly to the Nevada DOC. For unknown reasons, Mr. Jacquette returned to the Washington DOC on May 15, 2008. DOC appeals the order prohibiting Mr. Jacquette from placement in a Washington correctional facility. The prosecutor does not object to DOC's request for relief. Mr. Jacquette informed his corrections counselor at DOC that there were no concerns for his safety.
ANALYSIS
Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. W. Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma Dep't of Fin., 140 Wn.2d 599, 607, 998 P.2d 884 (2000). Giving effect to the legislature's purpose and intent is the primary goal of statutory interpretation. State v. Watson, 146 Wn.2d 947, 954, 51 P.3d 66 (2002). If the language of a statute is clear on its face, the meaning of the statute "is to be derived from the plain language of the statute alone." Id.
DOC has the authority to petition the appellate court for review of a sentence that commits an offender to the jurisdiction or custody of DOC. RCW 9.94A.585(7). Our review is limited to errors of law. RCW 9.94A.585(7). When there is an error in the judgment and sentence imposed, such that the court is determined to have exceeded its authority by imposing a particular requirement, remand for resentencing is an appropriate remedy. See In re Sentence of Jones, 129 Wn. App. 626, 631, 120 P.3d 84 (2005).
RCW 72.02.240 states, in pertinent part:
The secretary shall determine the state correctional institution in which the offender shall be confined during the term of imprisonment. The confinement of any offender shall be governed by the laws applicable to the institution to which the offender is certified for confinement.
RCW 72.02.240 is clear on its face. This statute gives DOC the sole authority to determine the state correctional facility where inmates will serve terms of imprisonment.
Here, the sentencing court ordered that Mr. Jacquette serve his sentence in Nevada or a state other than Washington or California. This was error because DOC has the sole authority to determine the state correctional institution where Mr. Jacquette is confined. Thus, we remand for resentencing.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
SCHULTHEIS, C.J. and SWEENEY, J. concur.