IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 53417-7-II

Respondent,

v.

ADAM TERRY GROSS, UNPUBLSHED OPINION

Appellant.

LEE, C.J. — Adam T. Gross pleaded 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. After Gross filed his appeal, the State moved to 

correct the scrivener’s error in the judgment and sentence, and the superior court then corrected 

Gross’s judgment and sentence. Gross’s appeal is moot because the relief requested has been 

granted. Accordingly, we 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 pleaded 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 as 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, 2020
No. 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 scrivener’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 granted 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 sentence, 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 sentence 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, 189 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, we 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 this 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.