FILE 

IN CLERKS OFFICE 

llFREME c:cxm.ITAI'E OFINIINIR:IN 

DATE NOV 2 6 2014 

~As· 

TN$. opfnfon was filed for record 

at B:oo4m on Nov. c911 l«f 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

Respondent, 

v. 

IGNACIO COBOS, 

Petitioner. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_________________________ ) 

No. 89900-2 

EnBanc 

Filed NOV 2 6 2014 

GONZALEZ, I.-Ignacio Cobos represented himself at his sentencing hearing 

and objected to the State's calculation of his offender score. The trial judge sentenced 

Cobos with the offender score asserted by the State without holding an evidentiary 

hearing because Cobos's former counsel had agreed to the score prior to being 

discharged. The Court of Appeals found the sentencing court erred in failing to hold 

an evidentiary hearing, remanded for resentencing, and concluded that both sides 

could introduce supplemental evidence of the proper score on remand. State v. Cobos, 

178 Wn. App. 692, 700-01, 315 P.3d 600 (2013) (citing LAWS OF 2008, ch. 231, § 4 

(codified at RCW 9.94A.530(2))). We granted review. State v. Cobos, 180 Wn.2d 

1008, 325 P.3d 913 (2014). Cobos argues the State is barred from offering new 

evidence on remand under the common law "no second chance" rule. Our decision is 
State v. Cobos, No. 89900-2 

controlled by State v. Jones, No. 89302-1 (Wash. Nov. 26, 2014), where we held that 

RCW 9.94A.530(2) supersedes our common law "no second chance" rule. 

Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Cobos was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine, possession of 

methamphetamine, and voyeurism. At his sentencing hearing, Cobos moved to 

represent himself. Before the court ruled on his motion, defense counsel and the State 

agreed Cobos had an offender score of9. The court granted Cobos's motion to 

represent himself, and sentencing was continued without revisiting the offender score 

calculation. 1 At the second sentencing hearing a week later, Cobos objected to the 

State's summary of his criminal history. 

The State offered to obtain certified copies of the judgments and sentences and 

suggested a two-week continuance. Cobos objected to a continuance and maintained 

his objection to the calculation of his offender score. Verbatim Report of Proceedings 

(Feb. 14, 2012) at 24 ("I don't agree to that calculation of the offender score .... And 

if the Court wants to continue the sentencing, that's up to the Court .... I just want to 

--to note an objection."). The court proceeded with sentencing based on the State's 

asserted offender score of9 and sentenced Cobos to 120 months' confinement. 

Cobos appealed, and the Court of Appeals held the sentencing court erred when 

1 This summary of facts is based on the criminal minute sheet from the February 7, 2012, 

sentencing. A transcript of that hearing is not in our record. 

2 
State v. Cobos, No. 89900-2 

it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and instead relied on material facts to which 

Cobos objected. Cobos, 178 Wn: App. at 700. The Court of Appeals held the parties 

could introduce new evidence regarding criminal history pursuant to the 2008 

statutory amendment to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A 

RCW. I d. at 700-01. Cobos filed a pro se petition for review, which we granted. 

Cobos, 180 Wn.2d 1008. Cobos declined appointment of counsel to handle his 

appeal. 

ANALYSIS 

Cobos argues the State should be held to the existing record on remand under 

the common law "no second chance" rule. Under our common law, on remand for 

resentencing following the appeal of a sentencing error, the State was permitted to 

introduce new evidence if the defendant had not made a specific objection at 

sentencing. State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 485-86, 973 P.2d 452 (1999). But see In 

re Pers. Restraint of Cadwallader, 155 Wn.2d 867, 876-78, 123 P.3d 456 (2005) 

(holding that under unique circumstances, State was not permitted to introduce new 

evidence on remand even though defendant did not object). But where a defendant 

made a specific objection at sentencing, the State was generally held to the original 

sentencing record. Ford, 137 Wn.2d at 485; State v. Lopez, 147 Wn.2d 515, 520-21, 

55 P.3d 609 (2002). But see State v. Bergstrom, 162 Wn.2d 87, 96-98, 169 P.3d 816 

(2007) (permitting State to introduce new evidence where defense counsel had 

3 
State v. Cobos, No. 89900-2 

acknowledged criminal history over defendant's prose objection). The "no second 

chance" rule served to preserve judicial economy. See Jones, slip op. 

Subsequent to the development of the common law rule, the legislature 

ainended several provisions of the SRA in 2008 "to ensure that sentences imposed 

accurately ret1ect the offender's actual, complete criminal history, whether imposed at 

sentencing or upon resentencing." LAws OF 2008, ch. 231, § 1. In relevant part, 

RCW 9.94A.530(2) was amended to provide that "[o]n remand for resentencing 

following appeal or collateral attack, the parties shall have the opportunity to present 

and the court to consider all relevant evidence regarding criminal history, including 

criminal history not previously presented." LAws OF 2008, ch. 231, § 4. 

In Jones, we held that this provision ofRCW 9.94A.530(2) superseded our 

' ' 

common law "no second chance" rule. Cobos does not challenge the statute and 

raises no additional arguments for our consideration, and so we follow our decision in 

Jones and affirm the Court of Appeals. 

4 
State v. Cobos, No. 89900-2 

WE CONCUR: 

(S~__cf 

C111f4f} 

5