From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Luna

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Jan 22, 2008
142 Wn. App. 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)

Opinion

No. 25787-8-III.

January 22, 2008.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Stevens County, No. 04-1-00267-7, Allen Nielson, J., entered November 14, 2006.


Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, A.C.J., concurred in by Brown and Kulik, JJ.


Mark Steven Luna was charged with possession of a controlled substance methamphetamine, a class C felony violation of RCW 69.50.4013(1), alleged in the amended information to have occurred on or about October 20, 2004. He was convicted by a jury, as charged.

Mr. Luna was sentenced to 30 days in the county jail, 20 days of which were converted to 160 hours of community service, and credit for 10 days served. His sentence also included a 12-month term of community custody. Based upon his interpretation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW, he contends on appeal that the sentencing court had no authority to order a term of community custody because he was not committed to the department of correction's custody. We disagree and affirm.

The issue of whether the trial court had any authority under the SRA to impose a term of community custody is a question of statutory interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007). When interpreting a statute, the goal is to discern and implement the legislature's intent. Id. If the plain language of the statute is unambiguous, the statute is enforced in accordance with its plain meaning. Id. Here, we examine the statutes in effect on October 20, 2004, the date the crime was committed. RCW 9.94A.345.

The general sentencing statute provides that a trial court must impose a community custody term upon felony offenders whose term of confinement is one year or less, if applicable, under RCW 9.94A.545. RCW 9.94A.505(1), (2)(a)(iv).

Specifically, the statute provides:

"(1) When a person is convicted of a felony, the court shall impose punishment as provided in this chapter.

"(2)(a) The court shall impose a sentence as provided in the following sections and as applicable in the case:

". . . .

"(iv) RCW 9.94A.545, relating to community custody for offenders whose term of confinement is one year or less." RCW 9.94A.505(1), (2)(a)(iv).

Mr. Luna relies on a sentencing statute that provides for the imposition of a term of community custody "[w]hen a court sentences a person to the custody of the department for . . . a felony offense under chapter 69.50." RCW 9.94A.715(1) (emphasis added). Mr. Luna contends that because he was not committed to the custody of the department of corrections for his 30-day sentence, community custody provisions do not apply. But a different statute applies to offenders sentenced to confinement for one year or less.

The State identifies the applicable community custody statute, which provides:

Except as provided in RCW 9.94A.650, on all sentences of confinement for one year or less, in which the offender is convicted of a sex offense, a violent offense, a crime against a person under RCW 9.94A.411, or felony violation of chapter 69.50 or 69.52 RCW or an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit such a crime, the court may impose up to one year of community custody, subject to conditions and sanctions as authorized in RCW 9.94A.715 and 9.94A.720. An offender shall be on community custody as of the date of sentencing. However, during the time for which the offender is in total or partial confinement pursuant to the sentence or a violation of the sentence, the period of community custody shall toll.

Former RCW 9.94A.545 (2003) (emphasis added).

The plain language of former RCW 9.94A.545 is unambiguous: when an offender is convicted of a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, chapter 69.50 RCW — in this case possession of a controlled substance, RCW 69.50.4013(1) — the court may impose a term of community custody up to one year. The exception, RCW 9.94A.650, which relates to sentencing for first-time offenders, was not used in this case. The court therefore had authority to order a community custody term.

Mr. Luna does not persuade us with his argument that the scoring sheet in the sentencing guideline implementation manual for the offense of possession of methamphetamine provides for community custody only when the offender is committed to the custody of the department of corrections. See Wash. Sentencing Guidelines Comm'n, Adult Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2004) § II.B. at III-260 ("When a court sentences an offender to the custody of the Dept. of Corrections, the court shall also sentence the offender to community custody for the range of 9 to 12 months, or to the period of earned release, whichever is longer (RCW 9.94A.715).").

The individual scoring sheet for the crime does not expressly refer to former RCW 9.94A.545, the community custody statute applicable to offenders sentenced to terms of commitment of one year or less. But it does refer the reader to a general section on sentencing options for drug offenses at § III-268, which provides: "If a sentence is one year or less: community custody may be ordered for up to one year (See RCW 9.94A.545 for applicable situations)." Wash. Sentencing Guidelines Comm'n, supra, § III.C., E., at III-269. See also Wash. Sentencing Guidelines Comm'n, supra, at I-vii ("Adult offenders who committed felonies on or after July 1, 1984 are subject to the provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, as amended (SRA).").

Finally, Mr. Luna relies on RCW 9.94A.517(1), which sets forth the drug offense sentencing grid. He argues that the provision does not authorize community custody. He overlooks, however, the next provision of that statute that authorizes the court to "utilize any other sanctions or alternatives as authorized by law, including but not limited to the special drug offender sentencing alternative under RCW 9.94A.660 or drug court under RCW 2.28.170." RCW 9.94A.517(2).

Affirmed.

A majority of the panel has determined that 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, A.C.J.

WE CONCUR: Brown, J. Kulik, J.


Summaries of

State v. Luna

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three
Jan 22, 2008
142 Wn. App. 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)
Case details for

State v. Luna

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. MARK STEVEN LUNA, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three

Date published: Jan 22, 2008

Citations

142 Wn. App. 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)
142 Wash. App. 1040