Opinion ID: 2770231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions To Supplement the Appellate Record

Text: We deny both pending motions to supplement. In Friedlund's case, the trial court entered written findings and fact of conclusions of law several months after we accepted review. We conclude that the trial court lacked authority to enter its findings under RAP 7.2(e). As noted above, CrR 7.8 and RAP 7.2(e) limit the superior court's authority to modify a criminal judgment. RAP 7.2(e) explicitly requires the superior court to obtain permission from the appellate court before making any determination that would change a decision then being reviewed by the appellate court. Here, the decision we are reviewing is the trial court's judgment and sentence imposing an exceptional sentence on Friedlund. That judgment and sentence explicitly incorporates the written findings supporting the exceptional sentence. Consequently, the trial court's belated entry of written findings alters the decision under review. Because the trial court failed to obtain our permission prior to entering its written findings, entering the findings violated RAP 7 .2( e). 8 State v. Friedlund, No. 89926-6 Consolidated with State v. Volk, No. 90005-1 A contrary holding would deprive Friedlund of his right to appeal. RCW 9.94A.585(2) gives defendants the right to appeal any exceptional sentence to the Court of Appeals. Because the parties completed their Court of Appeals briefing before the trial court entered its findings, Friedlund had no opportunity to appeal the written findings undergirding his exceptional sentence. It would be unfair to address the merits of the trial court's written findings when Friedlund has had no opportunity to appeal them. Because the trial court did not seek permission from this court prior to entering its written findings-the absence of which lies at the core of Friedlund's appeal-it lacked authority to enter those findings. Consequently, we deny the State's motion to supplement the Friedlund record with the trial court's belatedly entered findings. 4 We deny the motion to supplement in Volk as well. The superior court in Volk correctly recognized that it lacked authority to enter findings under RAP 7.2(e) and therefore refused to enter the written findings that the State proposed. Moreover, because the trial court never entered the State's proposed findings, adding them to the present appellate record would add nothing of relevance to the record. 4 The adequacy of the superior court's belatedly entered written findings is the subject of a separate appeal, State v. Friedlund, No. 32640-3-111 (Wash. Ct. App.), currently stayed pending the outcome of this case. Vacation of the existing findings of fact will presumably moot that appeal, but we leave to the appellate court how best to resolve the matter. 9 State v. Friedlund, No. 89926-6 Consolidated with State v. Volk, No. 90005-1