IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

ERIC BARNETT,

Appellant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 83434-7-I

DIVISION ONE

PUBLISHED OPINION

ANDRUS, A.C.J. — Eric Barnett appeals the duration of his prison sentence 

imposed after a jury convicted him of second degree assault with a firearm, first 

degree unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of a stolen firearm. He 

argues the trial violated RCW 9.94A.533(3)(f) when it imposed a 36-month firearm 

enhancement to run consecutively to the sentences he received for the firearms 

offenses. We disagree and affirm. 

FACTS

On April 5, 2019, Barnett assaulted his friend, Dylan Hjelm, with a stolen 

.22 caliber revolver. The State charged Barnett with second degree assault with 

a firearm enhancement, possession of a stolen firearm, and because he had a 

prior serious felony conviction, first degree unlawful possession of a firearm. The 

jury found Barnett guilty as charged. 
No. 83434-7-I/2

- 2 -

The trial court imposed a high end standard range sentence of 57 months 

for the second degree assault conviction and a high end standard range sentence 

of 43 months for each of the two firearm offenses. The court ordered that the 

firearm offense sentences be served concurrently to the second degree assault 

sentence but, pursuant to RCW 9.94A.589(1)(c),

1 ordered that they be served 

consecutively as to each other, for a period of confinement of 86 months. The 

court also ordered that the 36-month firearm enhancement, imposed under RCW 

9.94A.533(3)(b) as a result of the assault conviction, run consecutive to Barnett’s 

total period of confinement, resulting in a total sentence of 122 months. Barnett 

appeals the duration of his sentence. 

ANALYSIS

Barnett argues that the trial court violated RCW 9.94A.533(3)(f) when it 

ordered the firearm enhancement to run consecutive to the firearm possession 

offenses. We disagree.

We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Dennis, 191 

Wn.2d 169, 172, 421 P.3d 944 (2018). The purpose of statutory interpretation is 

to give effect to the intent of the legislature. State v. Sweany, 174 Wn.2d 909, 914, 

281 P.3d 305 (2012). To derive legislative intent, we look to the “plain language 

 1 RCW 9.94A.589(1)(c) provides

If an offender is convicted under RCW 9.41.040 for unlawful possession of a 

firearm in the first or second degree and for the felony crimes of theft of a firearm 

or possession of a stolen firearm, or both, the standard sentence range for each 

of these current offenses shall be determined by using all other current and prior 

convictions, except other current convictions for the felony crimes listed in this 

subjection (1)(c), as if they were prior convictions. The offender shall serve 

consecutive sentences for each conviction of the felony crimes listed in this 

subjection (1)(c), and for each firearm unlawfully possessed.
No. 83434-7-I/3

- 3 -

enacted by the legislature, considering the text of the provision in question, the 

context of the statute in which the provision is found, related provisions, and the 

statutory scheme as a whole.” State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186, 192, 298 P.3d 724 

(2013). If the statute's meaning is unambiguous, our inquiry ends. State v. 

Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007).

We conclude RCW 9.94A.533(3)2 is unambiguous. It provides in pertinent 

part:

(3) The following additional times shall be added to the 

standard sentence range for felony crimes committed after July 23, 

1995, if the offender or an accomplice was armed with a firearm as 

defined in RCW 9.41.010 and the offender is being sentenced for 

one of the crimes listed in this subsection as eligible for any firearm 

enhancements based on the classification of the completed felony 

crime. If the offender is being sentenced for more than one offense, 

the firearm enhancement or enhancements must be added to the 

total period of confinement for all offenses, regardless of which 

underlying offense is subject to a firearm enhancement. . . . :

. . . .

(b) Three years for any felony defined under any law as a 

class B felony or with a statutory maximum sentence of ten years, or 

both, and not covered under (f) of this subsection;

. . . .

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all firearm 

enhancements under this section are mandatory, shall be served in 

total confinement, and shall run consecutively to all other sentencing 

provisions, including other firearm or deadly weapon enhancements, 

for all offenses sentenced under this chapter. . . .

(f) The firearm enhancements in this section shall apply to all 

felony crimes except the following: Possession of a machine gun or 

bump-fire stock, possessing a stolen firearm, drive-by shooting, theft 

of a firearm, unlawful possession of a firearm in the first and second 

degree, and use of a machine gun or bump-fire stock in a felony . . . 

(Emphasis added.)

 2 RCW 9.94A.533 was amended in 2020. LAWS OF 2020, ch. 330, § 1. These amendments do 

not impact the analysis here. Any reference to the statute in this opinion is to the version in effect 

at the time.
No. 83434-7-I/4

- 4 -

Barnett contends that RCW 9.94A.533(3) and (3)(f) conflict, requiring us to 

harmonize these provisions in his favor to preserve the legislative intent and avoid 

unjust results. We see no conflict. RCW 9.94A.533(3)(f) merely lists crimes which 

are exempt from the firearm enhancement. This subsection is silent on how 

firearm enhancements should be served when an offender has multiple 

convictions, some eligible for an enhancement and some not. RCW 9.94A.533(3), 

by contrast, explicitly states how courts should calculate the total period of 

confinement in such a situation. Because these provisions address different 

operations of the statute, they are not in conflict.

Barnett argues that RCW 9.94A.533(f) is evidence that the legislature did 

not intend for any firearm enhancement to run consecutively to a sentence for a 

firearm offense. But this argument would require us to add words not present in 

the statute. The plain language of RCW 9.94A.533(3) specifies that if any firearm 

enhancement is imposed for an eligible crime, it must be added “to the total period 

of confinement for all offenses.” (emphasis added). It does not say that the firearm 

enhancement is to be added to the total period of confinement for all “eligible 

offenses.” Our interpretation is consistent with RCW 9.94A.533(3)(e) which states 

that firearms enhancements “shall run consecutively to all other sentencing 

provisions.” Again, the legislature did not choose to run the enhancement 

consecutively only to “all other sentencing provisions, except those relating to 

firearm offenses.” When we interpret statutes, we will not “add words where the 

legislature has chosen not to include them.” Rest. Dev., Inc. v. Canawill, Inc., 150 

Wn.2d 674, 682, 80 P.3d 598 (2003).
No. 83434-7-I/5

- 5 -

Barnett’s total period of confinement was 86 months. Thus, the trial court 

correctly added the 36-month firearm enhancement to his 86-month sentence. 

We affirm.

WE CONCUR: