From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hill

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Oct 19, 2009
152 Wn. App. 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

Opinion

No. 61124-1-I.

October 19, 2009.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Snohomish County, No. 04-1-01750-0, Kenneth L. Cowsert, J., entered December 11, 2007.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Hill appealed the sentence imposed on remand from his first appeal in this case. In our prior decision, in No. 57019-6-I, we noted that Hill's original sentence could potentially exceed the statutory maximum because of the combination of incarceration and community custody. We remanded "to amend the judgment and sentence to state the maximum sentence and clarify that the total term of incarceration and community custody cannot exceed the statutory maximum." Although the trial court added the appropriate language in response to our opinion, Hill appealed again.

State v. Hill, noted at 137 Wn. App. 1058, 2007 WL 1041454, at *2.

In an opinion issued on December 29, 2008, relying on State v. Davis, 146 Wn. App. 714, 192 P.3d 29 (2008) and State v. Linerud, 147 Wn. App. 944, 197 P.3d 1224 (2008), this court determined that Hill was entitled to the additional relief of a resentencing at which he could request an exceptional downward sentence based upon the premise that his sentence, even as clarified, improperly exceeded the statutory maximum and constituted an improper indeterminate sentence.

The State filed a petition for review, and the Supreme Court granted review and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of In re Pers. Restraint of Brooks, 166 Wn.2d 664, 211 P.3d 1023 (2009).

The Brooks court concluded that when, as here, a sentence may potentially exceed the statutory maximum because of a combination of incarceration and community custody, the sentence does not unlawfully exceed the maximum and is not indeterminate or otherwise invalid if it is clarified to state that the combined term of community custody and confinement shall not exceed the statutory maximum. Brooks, 166 Wn.2d at 675; see also State v. Sloan, 121 Wn. App. 220, 223, 87 P.3d 1214 (2004). This is precisely what already occurred as a result of the first appeal in this matter. Accordingly, because Hill received all the relief he was entitled to as a result of the first appeal, he is not entitled to any further relief. We therefore affirm the judgment and sentence.


Summaries of

State v. Hill

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Oct 19, 2009
152 Wn. App. 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)
Case details for

State v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. DAVID ERNEST HILL, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Oct 19, 2009

Citations

152 Wn. App. 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)
152 Wash. App. 1041