INTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter ofthe Personal Restraint of: MICAH BRUNO,

Petitioner. No. 68487-6-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED DECISION 

### FILED: SEP 1 6 2013 cr>

CO xr Per Curiam. Micah Bruno has filed this personal restraint petition alleging that he is not receiving the benefit of his plea bargain because the Department of Corrections (DOC) has not properly credited his sentence in King County No. 09-1-04252-3 SEAwithpresentencejail time. The State filed criminal charges against Bruno in May 2009. On June 4, 2009, Bruno was arrested in Nevada and detained on local charges. Nevada authorities placed a fugitive hold on Bruno pursuantto the Washington warrant. In July 2009, Bruno was sentenced on the Nevada charges and transferred to a Nevada prison facility. In November 2009, Washington placed a detainer hold on Bruno. Bruno was eventuallytransferred to King County Jail on April 2, 2010 and 

### in May 2010, he pleaded guilty to twelve felony charges. As part of the plea agreement, the State and Bruno agreed that Bruno would receive credit for time served from the date the Washington warrant was served on Bruno. Bruno was sentenced inJune 2010 to 75 months' imprisonment. Thejudgmentand sentence provided that the "Defendant shall receive credit from the time when theNo. 68487-6-1 Page 2 of 3 

### Washington warrantfor this case was served on the defendant." According to the clerk's minutes from sentencing, credit would run from June 4, 2009, the date of Bruno's arrest in Nevada. 

### Acouple ofmonths after he was sentenced, on August 6, 2010, the trial court entered an order stating Bruno was to receive credit in this cause "starting November 15, 2009." This appears to be when the Washington detainer was served on Bruno. Several months later, in November 2010, the court entered an amended 

### Judgment and Sentence, striking the language providing for presentence credit from the time the Washington warrant was served, and simultaneously reducing his sentence by five months. 

### Finally on March 2011, the trial court entered yet another order. This order strikes the November 2010 amendedjudgment and sentence and reinstates the original June 2010 sentence. 

### In response to Bruno's petition, the DOC takes the position that the 

### presentence creditcalculationisproperlybased on the August2010orderproviding forpresentence credit to runfrom November 15, 2009. The State, on the other hand, argues that through the reinstatement of the originaljudgment and sentence, Bruno isreceiving the benefit of the sentence he bargainedfor—that is, creditfrom the date of his June 4, 2009, arrest inNevada. The State concedes that although 

### the March2011 order reinstating the original sentence does notspecifically rescind 

### theAugust 2010 order, the later ordersupersedes the earlier one and theAugust 2010 order should be stricken.No. 68487-6-1 Page 3 of 3 The State's concession is well-taken. We accept the concession, grant the petition, and vacate the August 2010 order. The DOC is directed to calculate Bruno's early release date in accordance with the trial court's March 2011 order reinstating his June 2010judgmentand sentence.

Forthe court: