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

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 53417

- 7

- II

Respondent,

v.
ADAM T ERRY GROSS, UNPUBLSHED OPINION

Appellant.

L EE , C.J.

— Adam T. Gross ple a d ed guilty to second degree malicious mischief and third degree theft. Gross appeals his judgment and sentence, alleging it erroneously references the
incorrect statute for theft in the third degree. A fter Gross filed his appeal, the State moved to correct the scrivener’s error in the judgment and sentence , and t he s uperior court then corrected
Gross’ s judgment and sentence . Gross’ s appeal is moot because the relief requested has been granted. Accordingly, w e dismiss Gross’ s appeal.
FACTS On April 10, 2019, the State charged Gross with second degree malicious mischief (Count 1) and third degree theft (Count 2). Gross ple a d ed guilty, and the superior court sentenced him directly thereafter. Gross’ s judgment and sentence lists the statutes to which he pleaded guilty and
referenced third degree theft a s RCW 9A.50.050 and RCW 9A.56.020. RCW 9A.50.050 is a civil Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two July 28, 2020No. 53417

- 7

- II

2

statute regarding damages for actions against a health care facility . RCW 9A.56.020 is a criminal statute defining theft. Gross appealed , arguing that the reference to RCW 9A.50.050 was a scriv ener’s error

. Gross requests that we remand to the superior court to strike any mention of RCW 9A.50.050. On December 13, 2019, the State moved this court to grant permission to the superior court
to correct the error. A commissioner of this court gra nted the motion, giving permission to the superior court to enter a corrected judgment and sentence . The commissioner also ordered that upon filing of the corrected judgment and sentence, the appellant must move to dismiss the appeal. The State then moved the superior court to correct the judgment and sentence by removing mention of RCW 9A.50.050 and replacing it with RCW 9A.56.050. On January 3, 2020, the superior court granted the State’s motion and issued a corrected judgment and se ntence, replacing
RCW 9A.50.050 with RCW 9A.56.050 as the statute listed for the theft in the third degree
conviction

. ANALYSIS The State argues that we should dismiss this appeal as moot because the superior court has issued a corrected judgment and s entence with the correct statute listed. We agree

. A case is basically moot if the court can no longer provide the relief sought or can no longer provide effective relief. State v. Cruz , 1 89 Wn.2d 588, 597, 404 P.3d 70 (2017) ; Josephinium
Associates v. Kahli , 111 Wn. App. 617, 622, 45 P.3d 627 (2002)

. Generally, a moot case will be
dismissed. Cruz , 189 Wn.2d at 597.No. 53417

- 7

- II

3

Here, w e can no longer provide effective relief to Gross because the superior court has corrected the judgment and sentence to reflect the correct statute, RCW 9A.56.050. This is the
relief Gross originally sought. Therefore, Gross’ s appeal is moot because his requested relief has been obtained. Accordingly, we dismiss Gross’ s appeal. A majority of the panel having determined that t his opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

Lee, C.J. We concur:

Worswick, J.

Maxa, J.