Opinion
No. 53674-5-I
Filed: April 4, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 02-1-08185-8. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 12/19/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Patricia H. Aitken.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St Seattle, WA 98122.
David Ra Nicholas (info Only), 9209 8th Ave SW, Seattle, WA 98126.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Julie Anne Kays, King Co Pros Office, W554, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
David Nicholas contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a standard range sentence following his guilty plea to rape of a child in the second degree. We affirm.
Nicholas raped a 13 year old girl. He pleaded guilty and requested a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA). The court considered the request and decided instead to impose a standard range sentence of 90 months.
A standard range sentence generally may not be appealed. An appellant may, however, challenge the procedure used by the trial court to impose a standard range sentence. But an appellant must show that the sentencing court had a duty to follow some specific procedure required by the Sentencing Reform Act to avoid the statutory bar to appealing a standard range sentence. Thus, where "[t]he central issue involves a matter of statutory construction, not a claim that the trial court abused its discretion," an appellate court will allow a challenge to a standard range sentence. But where the defendant's contention is merely that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a sexual offender disposition alternative, the standard range sentence is not appealable.
RCW 9.94A.585(1) (formerly RCW 9.94A.210(1)).
State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 182-83, 713 P.2d 719, 718 P.2d 796 (1986).
State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 712, 854 P.2d 1042 (1993).
State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 574 n. 1, 835, 835 P.2d 213 (1992).
State v. J.W., 84 Wn. App. 808, 811, 929 P.2d 1197 (1997).
Nicholas has not shown that the sentencing court failed to follow any specific procedure required by the Sentencing Reform Act. Consequently, we will not consider his contention that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the SSOSA alternative.
Affirmed.
APPELWICK, ELLINGTON and AGID, JJ.