IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. ERIC LEE LOWE, 

### Appellant. No. 67727-6-1 DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: March 18,2013 

### Schindler, J. — EricLee Loweappeals the sentence imposed following the jury 

### convictions for first degree murder, attemptedfirst degree robbery, first degree burglary, 

### second degree assault, and unlawful possession of afirearm. Lowe contendsthe

rso —•. <=> CO (-'; 

## sentencing courtmiscalculated his offenderscore when itincluded adeferredjuveSJIe gg 

## disposition in its calculations. Werecentlyrejectedthevery same argumentin Stlfev^, Lowe. Wn. App. ,293 P.3d 1287 (2013), and affirm. *-- &r\:

;-;r CC 

### On November28, 2000, thejuvenile courtjudge found Lowe guilty ofthirq^l ^~ CD -"^T^ 

### degree assault butdeferred the disposition for oneyear. Afterthedeferral period 

### expired, the Statemoved torevoke thedeferred disposition due toLowe's violation of sentence conditions. Thejuvenile courtjudge denied the motion as untimely, dismissed the deferred disposition, but did not vacate it.No. 67727-6-1/2 On June 8, 2011, Lowe pleaded guilty to residential burglary. On July 18, 2011, a jury found him guilty ofmurder, attempted robbery, burglary, assault, and unlawful possession ofa firearm. On August 24, 2011, the court entered a judgment and sentence on Lowe's guilty plea for residential burglary and a separatejudgment and sentence on thejury convictions for murder, attempted robbery, burglary, assault, and unlawful possession of
a firearm. The court counted the deferred disposition as a juvenile in calculating the offender score. Lowe appealed. In both appeals, Lowe argued that the court erred by 

### including hisjuvenile deferred disposition in the calculation ofhis offender score.1 On February 4, 2013, we held that the court did not err by including the deferred juvenile disposition in the calculation ofthe offender score and affirmed the sentence imposed for residential burglary. Lowe, 293 P.3d at 1287. Lowe contends that under the deferred disposition statute, former RCW 13.40.127 (1997), the court had only two options at the end ofthe deferral period: either revoke the deferred disposition, or vacate the conviction and dismiss. Because the State did not timely move to revoke the disposition, Lowe claims thejuvenile court's order dismissing the disposition necessarily vacated it. We considered and rejected the
same argument in Lowe, 293 P.3d at 1288.

1Shortly aftersentencing, Lowe filed a motion towithdraw hisguilty pleatoresidential burglary and a motion to amend thejudgment and sentence on his other convictions. Both motions were transferred to this court as personal restraint petitions.No. 67727-6-1/3 'n Lowe, we concluded that where, as here, the State does not timely move to revoke the disposition, and the court fails to make the statutorily required finding that the defendant complied with all terms of supervision, the court lacks authority to revoke or vacate the disposition and the disposition simply expires. Lowe, 293 P.3d at 1290. When this occurs, the finding of guilt remains intact and the disposition is properly included in the defendant's offender score. Lowe, 293 P.3d at 1290. Affirmed. 

# VcQ^mQQ

WE CONCUR: