### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 47839

- 1

- II
Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY TRAUMAYNE L A FROMBOIS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.

W ORSWICK , J.

— Anthony LaFrombois appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to
second degree assault
, drive

- by shooting
, and first degree robbery . He argues, and the State
concedes, that the sentencing court erred by miscalculating his offe nder score and imposing an
exceptional sentence based on the erroneously calculated offender score. We accept the State’s

concession. LaFrombois, in a supplemental brief, argues the trial court erred by not considering
his ability to pay before imposing legal financial obligations (LFOs), and further seeks waiver of
appellate costs. W e vacate LaFrombois’s sentence and remand for resentencing and for the trial
court to consider LaFrombois’s ability to pay LFOs

.
FACTS

LaFrombois pl eaded guilty to one count each of second degree a ssault, drive

- by shooting
, and first degree robbery

. In calculating LaFrombois’s offender score, the sentencing court
appears to have included point s to reflect that LaFro mbois had been on community custody at

the time his current offenses were committed. The record does not establish that LaFrombois
was on community custody at the time. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

June 1, 2016No. 47839

- 1

- II

2

After totaling the prior offenses and the current offenses, the sentencing court calculated
LaFrombois’s offender score at 13, and then determined that an exceptional sentence was
appropriate under RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c) to avoid some of LaFrombois’s current offenses going
unpunished

. LaFrombois argues, and the State concedes, that LaFrombois’s of fender score is

less than 13. 1

ANALYSIS
LaFrombois argues, and the State concedes, that his exceptional sentence was based on
an erroneously calculated offender score. We agree.
Sentencing errors resulting in unlawful sentences may be raised for the first time on
appeal. State v. Bahl
, 164 Wn.2d 739, 744, 193 P.3d 678 (2008). We review offender score

calculations de novo. State v. Moeurn
, 170 Wn.2d 169, 172, 240 P.3d 1158 (2010). The
sentencing court acts without statutory authority when imposing a sentence based on a

miscalculated offender score

. In re Pers. Restraint of Johnson
, 131 Wn.2d 558, 568, 933 P.2d

1019 (1997).

The sentencing court calculated LaFrombois’ s offender score at 13, based in part on its
finding that LaFrombois was on community custody at the time of his current offenses. Based

on this score , the court imposed an exceptional sentence above the standard range.

LaF rombois asserts that he was not on community custody at that time. And the State

concedes that it is not able to establish that LaFrombois was on community custody and,
therefore, that an additional point was erroneously included in the calculation of his prior

offenses. Because the record is insufficient to determine whether LaFrombois was on

1 The parties do not agree on what LaFrombois’s correct offender score is. W e leave it to the sentencing court to correctly determine LaFrombois’s correct offender score at the resentencing.No. 47839

- 1

- II

3

community custody , we remand for the sentencing court to determine whether LaFrombois was
on community custody at the time he committed the current offenses.

W e hold that the sentencing court erred in calculating LaFrombois’ s offender score and
basing its imposition of an exceptional sentence on that offender score. Accordingly, we vacate

LaFrombois’s sentence

. We remand for resentencing consistent with this o pinion . At
resentencing the trial court must consider LaFrombois’s ability to pay LFOs

. 2

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, the opinion shall be filed for public record in accordance with

RCW 2.06.040.

Worswick
, J.

We concur:

Maxa, A.C.J

.

Melnick, J.

2 Because the State has not substantially prevailed in this appeal, we do not address the issue of appellate costs.