Opinion
No. 51941-7-I, Consolidated with No. 52297-3-I, No. 53084-4-I.
Filed: August 9, 2004 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County. Docket No: 02-1-02481-0. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 02/05/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Thomas J Wynne.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Charles Franklin Blackman, c/o Snohomish County Pros, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4061.
Seth Aaron Fine, Attorney at Law, Snohomish Co Pros Ofc, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4060.
Jennifer L Dobson, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Oliver Ross Davis, WA Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101-2402.
Gregory Charles Link, WA Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101-2402.
Maureen Marie Cyr, Washington Appellate Project, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101-2402.
Jason Brett Saunders, WA Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101-2402.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Gregory Charles Link, WA Appellate Project, Cobb Bldg, 1305 4th Ave Ste 802, Seattle, WA 98101-2402.
Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
In these appeals, the State contends the sentencing courts erred in concluding that certain of respondents' prior convictions had washed out and could not be included in their offender scores. In each case, the sentencing courts rejected the State's argument that the prior convictions had to be included in the offender scores under 2002 amendments to RCW 9.94A.525 and RCW 9.94A.030. The Washington State Supreme Court recently considered that argument in State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d 179, 86 P.3d 139 (2004). The court held that the 2002 amendments "properly and unambiguously require that sentencing courts include defendants' previously `washed out' prior convictions when calculating defendants' offender scores at sentencing for crimes committed on or after the amendments' effective date." State v. Varga, 151 Wn.2d at 183. Because respondents committed their current offenses after the effective date of the 2002 amendments, the sentencing courts erred in failing to include the prior convictions in respondents' offender scores.
The sentences are reversed and remanded for resentencing.
AGID, COX, and BAKER, JJ.