Opinion
No. 29394-3-II c/w 29414-1-II, 29410-9-II, 29404-4-II, 29400-1-II.
Filed: August 12, 2003 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Mason County Docket No: 01-1-00005-5 Judgment or order under review Date filed: 09/19/2002
Counsel for Appellant(s), Patricia Anne Pethick, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 111952, Tacoma, WA 98411-1952.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Carol L. Case, Mason Co Pros Office, P.O. Box 639, Shelton, WA 98584-0639.
Otis Dahman appeals his sentence on a plea-based conviction of one count of first degree burglary, three counts of second degree burglary, one count of first degree malicious mischief, two counts of second degree malicious mischief, one count of residential burglary, one count of first degree theft, and one count of second degree theft. The convictions were entered on the same day. On June 14, 2001, the court sentenced Dahman to a concurrent sentence of 84 months in prison for all of the offenses except first degree burglary. On June 18, 2001, Dahman was sentenced to a standard range sentence of 116 months for conviction of first degree burglary to run consecutive to the 84-month sentence previously imposed.
Dahman challenges the court's imposition of consecutive sentences for convictions which were entered on the same date. The State concedes that under former RCW 9.94A.400 (1999) and former RCW 9.94A.360 (1999) the sentence for all of Dahman's convictions must run concurrently because they are current offenses. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Recodified as RCW 9.94A.589. Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6.
Recodified as RCW 9.94A.525. Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6.
FACTS
Dahman pleaded guilty to one count of first degree burglary, three counts of second degree burglary, one count of first degree malicious mischief, two counts of second degree malicious mischief, one count of residential burglary, one count of first degree theft, and one count of second degree theft. The charges arose out of crimes which occurred over a three-week period. On June 14, 2001, the court sentenced Dahman to 84 months in prison based on concurrent sentences for all of the charges except first degree burglary. Dahman was sentenced for the remaining burglary charge on June 18, 2001. The court imposed a sentence within the standard range of 116 months to run consecutively with the 84-month sentence. The court did not find grounds to impose an exceptional sentence. Dahman moved to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate the judgment and sentence. The court denied Dahman's request. Dahman appeals only the imposition of consecutive sentences.
ANALYSIS
Dahman asserts that the sentencing court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the conviction of first degree burglary and the nine other convictions which were entered on the same day. Under former RCW 9.94A.360 and former RCW 9.94.A.400, the court must impose concurrent sentences when a defendant is sentenced for more than one current offense during the same proceeding unless the court finds that there are grounds for an exceptional sentence. State v. Smith, 74 Wn. App. 844, 875 P.2d 1249 (1994), review denied, 125 Wn.2d 1017 (1995). Current offenses are '[c]onvictions entered or sentenced on the same date.' Former RCW 9.94A.360(1).
Here, the court entered findings of guilt for each of the 10 charges against Dahman, including first degree burglary, on the same day. Consecutive sentences of 116 months for conviction of the first degree burglary and 84 months for the other nine offenses were imposed. The sentencing court did not find grounds for an exceptional sentence. Under former RCW 9.94A.360(1), all 10 convictions are current offenses because they were entered on the same day. The State concedes that Dahman's convictions are current offenses and the court did not find grounds for an exceptional sentence. Therefore, the State concedes that the sentences must run concurrently. Accordingly, we accept the State's concession, vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
BRIDGEWATER and HOUGHTON, JJ., concur.