Opinion
No. 53486-6-I
Filed: December 27, 2004 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Whatcom County. Docket No. 02-1-00593-7. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 11/13/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Michael F Moynihan.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Isa Ruiz — Informational Only, Doc #861741, Airway Heights Corrections Center, PO Box 2079/C-D/B-8-3, Airway Heights, WA 99001-2079.
Jason Brett Saunders, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701, Seattle, WA 98101-3635.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Philip James Buri, Buri Funston PLLC, 1601 F Street, Bellingham, WA 98225-3011.
Craig D. Chambers, Attorney at Law, Whatcom Co Prosecutor, 311 Grand Ave Fl 5, Bellingham, WA 98225-4048.
Issac Ruiz appeals his judgment and sentence imposed following his August 21, 2003 guilty plea to delivery of cocaine. First, Ruiz contends RCW 43.43.754 and the portion of his sentence requiring him to provide a biological sample for DNA identification violates his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and article I, section 7 right against searches without well founded suspicion. These arguments were rejected in, and are controlled by, our decision in State v. Surge. The Ninth Circuit has also recently rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a requirement to provide a biological sample for DNA identification.
122 Wn. App. 448, 94 P.3d 345 (2004) (holding that State v. Olivas, 122 Wn.2d 73, 856 P.2d 1076 (1993), is controlling on the Fourth Amendment issue).
U.S. v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004).
Second, Ruiz also asks us to reconsider our holding in State v. McCarthy, arguing that the sentencing court erred when it refused to retroactively apply the 2002 amendments to RCW 9.94A.525(12), which eliminated provisions that tripled the number of offender score points for prior drug convictions. He also argues the court's failure to retroactively apply the 2002 amendments to RCW 9.94A.525(12) violated his equal protection rights. The Washington Supreme Court has recently rejected these same arguments.
112 Wn. App. 231, 48 P.3d 1014 (2002), review denied, 148 Wn.2d 1011 (2003).
State v. Ross, 152 Wn.2d 220, 241, 95 P.3d 1225 (2004) (`[W]e affirm the Court of Appeals holding that the 2002 SRA amendments to RCW 9.94A.525(12) did not apply retroactively at sentencing for crimes committed before the amendments' effective date, and that the sentencing court's prospective application of the amendments does not violate Legrone's equal protection rights.')
Finally, the issues raised by Ruiz in his Statement of Additional Grounds for Review do not support any relief on appeal. He does not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and he does not establish any prejudice from the trial court's denial of his request for new counsel.
We affirm.
COLEMAN, J., GROSSE, J. and BAKER, J.