### FILED OCT. 15,2013 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt W A StateCourtofAppeals, Division III INTHE COURTOF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISIONTHREE STATE OFWASHINGTON, ) No. 30798-1-III 

### ) Respondent, 

### ) ) 

### v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

### ) MIGUEL A. CARRILLODENIZ, 

### ) ) Appellant. 

### ) KULIK,

### J.
- Miguel CarrilloDenizpleaded guilty tothirddegree rape. Aspart of Mr. Carrillo Deniz's sentence, the trial court ordered community custody for a term of36 months. Mr. Carrillo Deniz appeals. We disagree withMr. Carrillo Deniz's contention thatthe community custody statute applicabletohis sentence, RCW 9.94A.701, is ambiguous. Therefore, we affirm the 36-month community custody term. FACTS Mr. CarrilloDenizpleaded guilty tothird degree rape, RCW 9A.44.060(1)(a). In additionto 13 months ofconfmement, thejudgmentand sentence ordered 36 months of community custody. Mr. CarrilloDeniz didnot object tothe term ofcommunity custody.No. 30798-1-III State v. Carrillo Deniz
Mr. Carrillo Deniz now appeals. He contends that his term ofcommunity custody should be modified because ofambiguity in the community custody statute, RCW 9.94A.701. He maintains that the statute is ambiguous because more than one section ofRCW9.94A.701 controls the length ofhis community custody term. Specifically, because third degree rape is both a sex offense and a crime against a person, his sentence falls underthe statutory provisions for certain sex offenses, RCW 9.94A.701(1)(a), and for crimes againstpersons, RCW9.94A.701(3)(a). He applies the rule oflenityto the alleged ambiguity and maintains that he should receive the lesser 12­ month term ofcommunity custody for crimes against persons. ANALYSIS A sentence imposed contrary to the law may be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Anderson, 58 Wn. App. 107, 110, 791 P.2d 547 (1990). On appeal, a defendant may challenge a sentence imposed in excess ofstatutory authority because "adefendant cannot agree to punishment in excess ofthatwhich the Legislature has established." In re Pers. Restraint of Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d 861, 873-74, 50 P.3d 618 (2002). "Questions of statutory interpretation are questions oflaw subject to de novo review." State V. Franklin, 172 Wn.2d 831, 835, 263 P.3d 585 (2011).

2No. 30798-1-111 

### State 

### v. Carrillo Deniz
When interpreting the meaning and purpose ofa statute, the objective ofthe court is to determine the intent ofthe legislature. 

### State v. 

### Jones, 172 Wn.2d 236,242,257 P.3d 616 (2011) (quoting 

### State v. 

### Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600, 115 P.3d 281 (2005)). Effect is given to the plain meaning ofthe statute when the plain meaning can be determined from the text ofthe statute. 

### Id. The statute is to be read as a whole, with consideration given to all statutoryprovisions in relation to one another and with each provision given effect. 

### State v. 

### Merritt, 91 Wn. App. 969, 973, 961 P.2d 958 (1998). After conducting aplain meaning review, ifthe statute is still susceptible to more than one interpretation, then the statute is ambiguous and the court relies on statutory construction, legislative history, and relevant case law to determine legislative intent. 

### Jones, 172 Wn.2d at 242 (quoting 

### Christensen v. 

### Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365,373, 173 P.3d 228 (2007)). "Whenthere is a conflict between one statutoryprovision which treats
a subject in a general way and another whichtreats the same subject in a specific manner, the specific statute will prevail." 

### Pannell v. 

### Thompson, 91 Wn.2d 591, 597, 589 P.2d 1235 (1979) (emphasis omitted). "Statutes are construed so as to avoid strained or absurd consequences." 

### Merritt, 91 Wn. App. at 973. Interpretations are not to render any statutory language superfluous. 

### Wright v. 

### Engum, 124 Wn.2d 343,352,878 P.2d 1198 (1994).


### 3No.30798-1-II1 

### State 

### v. Carrillo Deniz
The rule oflenity applies to situations where more than one interpretation can be drawn from the wording ofa statute. 

### State v. 

### Snedden, 149 Wn.2d 914,922, 73 P.3d 995 (2003). "Underthe rule oflenity, the court must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the criminal defendant." 

### State v. 

### McGee, 122 Wn.2d 783, 787, 864 P.2d 912 (1993). Here, the statute controlling Mr. Carrillo Deniz's term ofcommunity custody sentence is RCW 9.94A.701. Within this statute, RCW 9.94A.701(1)(a)provides that if
an offender is sentenced to the custody ofthe Department ofCorrections for a sex offense not sentencedunderRCW 9.94A.507, the court shall sentence the offender to community custody for three years. Also ofimportance within the statute, RCW 9.94A.701(3)(a) provides thatwhen a court sentences a person to the custody ofthe Department ofCorrections for any crime against a person under RCW 9.94A.411(2), the court shall also sentence an offender to
one year ofcommunity custody. Rape in the third degree, RCW 9A.44.060, is a sex offense as defined by former RCW 9.94A.030(45) (2010); rape in the third degree is not sentencedunder RCW 9.94A.507. Also, rape in the third degree is listed as a crime againstpersons under RCW 9.94A.411(2).

4No.30798-I-III 

### State 

### v. Carrillo Deniz
The plain meaning ofRCW 9.94A.701 clearly indicates thatpersons who commit
sex offenses not sentenced under RCW 9.94A.507 are to be sentenced to 36 months of community custody. The text ofthe statute specifically imposes this specific sentence for these certain sex offenses. The legislature clearly intended for persons convicted ofa sex offense not listed under RCW 9.94A.507 to receive a longer sentence ofcommunity custody than persons convicted ofother crimes against persons. Because Mr. Carrillo Deniz was convicted ofa sex offense not sentenced under RCW 9.94A.507, the trial court applied the correct statutoryprovision and sentenced him to 36 months ofcommunity custody in addition to his 13 months ofconfinement. Mr. Carrillo Deniz suggests that the trial court's denial ofhis motion to withdraw his gUilty plea is a potential issue. However, Mr. Carrillo Denizprovides no argument in support ofhis concern. "Passing treatment ofan issue or lack ofreasoned argument is insufficient to meritjudicial consideration." 

### Holland v. 

### City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533,538,954 P.2d 290 (1998); 

### see RAP 10.3(a)(5). We will not address this issue on appeaLThe trial court correctly sentenced Mr. Carrillo Deniz to 36 months ofcommunity custody for third degree rape. The court was notrequired to sentence Mr. Carrillo Deniz to the lesser term ofcommunity custody for crimes against persons. The legislature
5No. 30798-1-111 State 

### v. Carrillo Deniz clearly intended for sexoffenses to receive a longer tenn ofcommunity custody than general crimes againstpersons. We affinn. A majority ofthepanel has detennined this opinionwill not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public recordpursuantto RCW 2.06.040. Kulik, 

### J. WE CONCUR:

# Sid~ Brown, J.

6