IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

MATTHEW S. MCNEIL,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 36944-7-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, J. — During the same sentencing hearing, the superior court sentenced 

Matthew McNeil for three crimes prosecuted in three distinct proceedings. The 

sentencing court imposed consecutive sentences for the three crimes. Because the court 

did not enter a written finding of fact supporting an exceptional sentence, we, based on 

RCW 9.94A.589(1), vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. 

FACTS

This appeal is one of three unconsolidated appeals concerning the sentencing in 

one day of Matthew McNeil for three crimes. This appeal concerns the charge of 

attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, the first crime in chronological order. 

Each appeal presents the same question of whether the sentencing court could impose 

consecutive sentences for the three offenses. 

FILED

JULY 2, 2020

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals Division III
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

2

On June 12, 2017, at 1:13 a.m., Matthew McNeil fled from a traffic stop after 

Spokane County Sheriff Deputy Matthew Ennis saw McNeil run a stop sign on Country 

Homes Boulevard. As Deputy Ennis trailed McNeil’s motorcycle, Ennis learned that 

McNeil had a felony arrest warrant. McNeil fled at over 100 miles per hour, passed 

several marked patrol vehicles in a 35 mile per hour speed zone, and ran several stop 

signs. McNeil crashed, and law enforcement arrested him. A search of his person 

revealed a switch blade knife. 

PROCEDURE

On June 21, 2017, the State of Washington charged Matthew McNeil with 

attempting to elude a police vehicle and possession of a dangerous weapon. Before 

resolution of these charges, the State, on February 28, 2018, charged, in a separate 

prosecution, McNeil with attempting to elude a police vehicle stemming from a February 

23, 2018 flight from the police. 

The State of Washington and Matthew McNeil agreed to McNeil pleading guilty 

to both counts of attempting to elude a police vehicle. The State agreed to recommend to 

the sentencing court a prison-based drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) to 

include 12.75 months in custody and 12.75 months on community custody, with both 

sentences to run concurrently. The State also agreed to dismiss the dangerous weapon 

violation charge associated with the June 12, 2017 apprehension. 
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

3

On September 5, 2018, Matthew McNeil pled guilty to the two distinct counts of 

attempting to elude a police vehicle. McNeil requested the court to continue his 

sentencing hearing for at least twelve weeks, so that he could participate in a parenting 

skills class, relationship class, and drug and alcohol treatment offered at the Geiger 

Correctional Center. The trial court granted his request and scheduled the sentencing 

hearing for January 2, 2019. The court later postponed the hearing until February 27, 

2019. We do not know the reason for this second continuance. 

While in custody awaiting sentencing on the two charges, Matthew McNeil and 

Emily Hammond agreed to smuggle controlled substances into the Geiger Correctional 

Facility. On February 26, 2019, Spokane County Detention Services listened to recorded 

telephone conversations between McNeil and Hammond, during which conversations 

McNeil asked Hammond to covertly mail him Suboxone. Later that day, a property 

custodian intercepted a letter addressed to McNeil and, after a diligent search, found clear 

strips secreted in the back seams of the envelope. The strips later tested positive for 

Suboxone. 

Another recorded conversation caught Matthew McNeil requesting Emily 

Hammond to arrive early to court the next day, February 27, 2019, to attend McNeil’s 

sentencing hearing from his previous two pleas. McNeil directed her to hide contraband 

in the bench cushion, on which he would sit, and to mark the area with a squirt of ketchup 

so that McNeil could locate the substance, conceal it within his body, and smuggle it into 
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

4

the correctional facility. After law enforcement discovered the plot, the superior court 

continued the February 27 sentencing hearing until May 30. 

At the sentencing hearing, on May 30, 2019, for the crimes of attempting to elude 

a law enforcement officer, the State disclosed that, although sentencing had been 

continued before, the parties were attempting to reach a global resolution for all pending 

charges, and the State awaited confirmation that one of the substances sent by Emily 

Hammond tested positive as Suboxone. At the request of the State, the court continued 

the hearing to July 3, 2019, but declared that, if the parties had not reached a global 

settlement by July 3, the court would then impose a sentence on the two counts of 

eluding. 

Before July 3, 2019, the parties reached a global resolution which included 

Matthew McNeil pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver a controlled 

substance to resolve the new charges. On July 3, 2019, the State amended the 

information in this case to charge one count of conspiracy to commit delivery of a 

controlled substance. McNeil pled guilty to the charge. With the plea, McNeil had a 9+ 

offender score and faced a standard range sentence of twenty-two to twenty-nine months 

for each of the attempting to elude offenses and zero to twelve months for the controlled 

substance offense. McNeil had twenty-one earlier felony convictions. 

The superior court proceeded with sentencing for all three offenses on July 3, 

2019. At the sentencing hearing, the State informed the court of a joint sentencing 
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

5

recommendation, in which the State and McNeil agreed to request a prison-based, 

concurrent DOSA sentence of 12.75 months in custody and another 12.75 months on 

community supervision for the attempting to elude offenses. For the conspiracy to 

deliver a controlled substance charge, the parties recommended six months of 

confinement, consecutive to the DOSA sentence. McNeil’s trial counsel, during the 

hearing, acknowledged the joint recommendation for sentencing. 

During the sentencing hearing, the sentencing court asked Matthew McNeil 

whether he had participated in a DOSA sentence before and if he had successfully 

completed the sentence. McNeil responded:

I was—kind of. It was—they —I went through in Airway Heights 

and it was kind of like a . . . training class that they did. I completed the 

class, but it wasn’t—like, the facilitator wasn’t really . . . kind of hard to 

explain. But, like, my group that went in there was the first group that they

kind of allowed some money that got us in there. We got a four-month 

class for the group. And the facilitator wasn’t really qualified for the job. 

And so I completed his class, but it wasn’t really a treatment-based class.

RP at 29. 

During his oral ruing at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the sentencing 

court weighed the joint recommendation with Matthew McNeil’s lengthy criminal 

history, the purposes of rehabilitation, and the facts behind McNeil’s three current 

convictions. Thereafter, the court declined to follow the joint recommendation. The 

court commented: 

Here you have two counts of attempting to elude. . . .
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

6

. . . .

On each of those two cases, the Court’s required to impose a 

sentence, for the most part, between 22 to 29 months unless the Court gives 

you a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative. But based upon your 

offender score, the Court can also go above that and impose an exceptional 

sentence because your offender score is so far beyond the maximum of nine 

and a crime would be unpunished if the Court were to run these concurrent.

With all that said, I firmly believe in rehabilitation. I think that if 

you were to get your drug addiction under control it would probably help 

everything. But at the same time, for 27 years people have been trying to 

assist you in resolving your problem. And it’s one thing to get a possession 

charge. It’s another thing to be going a hundred miles an hour down 

Country Homes while running from the police and then run from the police 

a second time and almost strike a patrol vehicle.

So as much as I respect the recommendation here, it seems that, first, 

one charge will go unpunished, at least one if the Court follows the 

recommendation. Secondly, I’d rather use our resources of the DOSA 

program on someone who might benefit from that. It [sic] think after 27

years, I hate to say it, but I’m more or less giving up and thinking maybe 

just incarceration will resolve the problem.

RP at 31-32. 

The trial court sentenced Matthew McNeil to twenty-nine months for each count 

of attempting to elude and twelve months for the conspiracy to possess a controlled 

substance charge. The sentencing court ordered McNeil to serve each sentence 

consecutive to the others, for a total of seventy months. In the judgment and sentence, 

the sentencing court made no entry imposing an exceptional sentence. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The only questions on appeal surround the consecutive sentences imposed on 

Matthew McNeil. McNeil contends that the sentencing court lacked authority to sentence 
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

7

him to consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589. McNeil requests that his sentence 

be vacated and the case be remanded for resentencing. The State concedes that the 

sentencing court lacked authority to sentence McNeil to consecutive sentences. 

Nevertheless, the State simply requests that McNeil’s sentence be remanded for the entry 

of written findings in support of McNeil’s exceptional sentence. 

Issue 1: Whether the sentencing court possessed authority to impose consecutive 

sentences for the three crimes, despite sentencing occurring on the same day, because of 

the delay in the sentencing of the two attempting to elude offenses?

Answer 1: No. 

RCW 9.94A.589 controls the question of whether the sentencing court may 

impose concurrent sentences or consecutive sentences. The statute declares, in relevant 

part:

(1)(a) Except as provided in (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection, 

whenever a person is to be sentenced for two or more current offenses, the 

sentence range for each current offense shall be determined by using all 

other current and prior convictions as if they were prior convictions for the 

purpose of the offender score: PROVIDED, That if the court enters a 

finding that some or all of the current offenses encompass the same 

criminal conduct then those current offenses shall be counted as one crime. 

Sentences imposed under this subsection shall be served concurrently.

Consecutive sentences may only be imposed under the exceptional sentence 

provisions of RCW 9.94A.535. 

(Emphasis added.) RCW 9.94A.589 presents the general rule that “current offenses” 

shall be sentenced concurrently. Another section of the sentencing reform act defines 
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

8

“current offense” as:

Convictions entered or sentenced on the same date as the conviction 

for which the offender score is being computed shall be deemed “other 

current offenses” within the meaning of RCW 9.94A.589.

RCW 9.94A.525(1). Thus, sentences imposed on the same day must be sentenced 

concurrently, unless sentenced under the exceptional sentence provisions of RCW 

9.94A.535. In re the Personal Restraint of Finstad, 177 Wn.2d 501, 507, 301 P.3d 450

(2013). 

RCW 9.94A.535 allows the sentencing court to enter an exceptional sentence, 

including consecutive sentences for crimes sentenced on the same day, under numerous 

circumstances. One circumstance is when “the defendant committed multiple current 

offenses and the defendant’s high offender score results in some of the current offenses 

going unpunished.” RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c). For the court to impose an exceptional 

sentence, the court must “set forth the reasons for its decision in written findings of fact 

and conclusions of law.” RCW 9.94A.535. A written finding is essential. State v. 

Friedlund, 182 Wn.2d 388, 341 P.3d 280 (2015). No court has addressed whether a 

corresponding written conclusion of law is essential. 

Matthew McNeil’s sentencing court mentioned, during the hearing, that he could 

impose an exceptional sentence on McNeil because of McNeil’s excessive offender 

score. But the court did not declare that he would impose an exceptional sentence, nor 
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

9

did the court enter any finding or conclusion of law favoring or approving an exceptional 

sentence. 

Matthew McNeil’s sentencing court sentenced McNeil on the same day for one 

conviction of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance and two convictions for 

attempting to elude a police vehicle. Accordingly, McNeil insists that the superior court 

could not impose consecutive sentences without declaring an exceptional sentence. We 

agree. 

Issue 2: What remedy should this court issue as a result of the erroneous 

consecutive sentences?

Answer 2: We remand to the superior court for resentencing. 

The trial court observed, in its oral ruling, that McNeil’s high offender score could 

result in an offense going unpunished, and that the court had authority to impose an 

exceptional sentence. Because of these comments, the State asks us to remand to the 

sentencing court for the sole purpose of entry of a finding of fact that the grant of 

concurrent sentences would allow McNeil to go unpunished for one or two of his new 

crimes. 

Matthew McNeil contends that his sentence must be vacated and remanded for 

resentencing. He does not expressly seek to preclude the superior court, during 

resentencing, from entering a written finding of fact that would validate an exceptional 

sentence or consecutive sentences. We understand the different position of the parties to 
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

10

lie in the State’s desire for this court to merely direct the court to enter a written finding 

that the free crimes aggravator applies, while McNeil wants the superior court to exercise 

discretion during an entirely new hearing as to what sentence to impose, including 

whether to run the sentences for two or more offenses consecutively. 

The State relies on State v. Friedlund, 182 Wn.2d 388, 341 P.3d 280 (2015). In 

Friedlund, the trial court sentenced John Friedlund to 120 months in prison, above the 

standard range sentence of three to nine months. The trial court explained its reasons for 

imposing an exceptional sentence on the record at sentencing. But when the court signed 

the judgment and sentence, no written findings were entered. Thereafter, the superior 

court retroactively entered appropriate findings. The Friedlund court held that the 

remedy for a trial court’s failure to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law is 

to remand the case for entry of those findings and conclusions. State v. Friedlund, 182 

Wn.2d at 395. 

Matthew McNeil contends State v. Rasmussen, 109 Wn. App. 279, 286, 34 P.3d 

1235 (2001) provides the proper remedy for his case. Andrew Rasmussen was convicted 

of four crimes committed on three different dates. The superior court sentenced all 

counts on the same day, and the trial court imposed consecutive sentences, but the trial 

court did not did not consider whether aggravating circumstances warranted imposition of 

an exceptional sentence. The Rasmussen court vacated the sentence and remanded the 

case for resentencing. 
No. 36944-7-III

State v. McNeil

11

We deem State v. Rasmussen, not State v. Friedlund, analogous. Matthew 

McNeil’s sentencing court discussed grounds for the imposition of an exceptional 

sentence, but did not expressly state that he wished to enter an exceptional sentence. 

Thus, a full rehearing is due. 

CONCLUSION

We remand for the sentencing court to perform resentencing. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040.

_________________________________

Fearing, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Korsmo, J.

______________________________

Pennell, C.J.