Opinion
67307-6-I
03-26-2012
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. P.M., B.D. 10/25/95, Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PER CURIAM.
P.M. appeals his conviction in juvenile court for first degree robbery, arguing that the State failed to prove surplus allegations in the information. But surplus language in an information may be disregarded and need not be proved "unless it is repeated in the jury instructions." State v. Tvedt, 153 Wn.2d 705, 718-19, 107 P.3d 728 (2005) (citing State v. Miller, 71 Wn.2d 143, 146, 426 P.2d 986 (1967)). P.M.'s argument that the rule should be different for bench trials is contrary to established and binding law. Tvedt, 153 Wn.2d at 719 (where case was tried to bench on stipulated facts and there were no jury instructions repeating surplusage in information, court held "this is not a case where the State had to prove the surplus facts included in the information"); State v. Munson, 120 Wn.App. 103, 108, 83 P.3d 1057 (2004) (in a bench trial, unnecessary allegations in information do not become elements that the State is required to prove); State v. McGary, 37 Wn.App. 856, 683 P.2d 1125 (1984).
Affirmed.