The exceptional sentence authority cannot be used in conjunction with an alternative DOSA sentence. State v. Onefrey , 119 Wash.2d 572, 576-77, 835 P.2d 213 (1992) ; Murray , 128 Wash. App. at 726, 116 P.3d 1072 ; State v. Goss , 56 Wash. App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990). It likewise cannot be used to make someone eligible for an alternative sentence, since the legislature is the body with the power to determine eligibility.
.RCW 9.94A.670(2).State v. Goss, 56 Wash.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990) (quoting D. Boerner, Sentencing in Washington ยง 2.5(c) (1985)).
.RCW 9.94A.670(2).State v. Goss, 56 Wash.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990) (quoting D. Boerner, Sentencing in Washington ยง 2.5(c) (1985)).
A more comparable case from the Court of Appeals is State v. Goss, 56 Wn. App. 541, 784 P.2d 194 (1990). In Goss, the trial court ordered that the conditions of the defendant's SSOSA should run consecutively, but the Court of Appeals found that the law required that the conditions run concurrently.
[2] This court has never addressed the question presented here: whether an exceptional sentence may be imposed in conjunction with SSOSA. However, in State v. Goss, 56 Wn. App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked discretion under SSOSA to order that the conditions of a suspended sentence run consecutively. The court reasoned:
The "SSOSA was created because it was believed that for certain first-time sexual offenders, 'requiring participation in rehabilitation programs is likely to prove effective in preventing future criminality.'" Miller, 180 Wn.App. at 417 (quoting State v. Goss, 56 Wn.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990) (quoting David Boerner, Sentencing in Washington ยง 2.5(c) (1985))). A SSOSA may be revoked at any time during the period of community custody and the sentence reinstated if there is sufficient evidence to convince the trial court that the offender has either "violated a condition of the suspended sentence or failed to make satisfactory progress in treatment."
SSOSA was created on the belief that required participation in rehabilitation programs "'is likely to prove effective in preventing future criminality'" for certain first-time sexual offenders.State v. Miller, 180 Wn.App. 413, 417, 325 P.3d 230 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Goss, 56 Wn.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990)), review denied. 181 Wn.2d 1022 (2014), cert, denied, 135 S.Ct. 1555, 191 L.Ed.2d 646 (2015).
The SSOSA provision "was intended to be used for those offenders who had committed less serious crimes and who were thought to be amenable to treatment." State v. Goss, 56 Wn.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990). An offender is eligible for a SSOSA if all the criteria listed in RCW 9.94A.670(2) are met. RCW 9.94A.670.
The SSOSA provision "was intended to be used for those offenders who had committed less serious crimes and who were thought to be amenable to treatment." State v. Goss, 56 Wn.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990). Webster's dictionary defines "favorable" as "expressing approval" and "indicative of a successful outcome."
The SSOSA provision "was intended to be used for those offenders who had committed less serious crimes and who were thought to be amenable to treatment." State v. Goss, 56 Wn. App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990); see also State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 576-77, 835 P.2d 213 (1992). The legislature in RCW 9.94A.670 established the requirements that must be met for a sex offender to be eligible for a SSOSA: