Opinion ID: 2770231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Written Findings Requirement

Text: We hold that the entry of written findings is essential when a court imposes an exceptional sentence. Because the record does not contain written findings in either of the pending cases, 3 we remand both Friedlund and Vo/k for the entry of written findings. We review de novo whether a trial court's reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence meet the requirements of the SRA. State v. Fowler, 145 Wn.2d 400, 406, 38 P.3d 335 (2002). The SRA permits a court to impose sentences that deviate from the standard sentence range if it finds, considering the purpose of this chapter, that there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence. RCW 9.94A.535. When a trial court imposes an exceptional sentence, the SRA requires the court to set forth the reasons for its decision in written findings of fact and conclusions of law. /d. (emphasis added). This requirement, word for word, has been part of the SRA from its inception. See LAWS OF 1981, ch. 137, § 12(3). The written findings must then be sent to the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission along with the trial court's judgment and sentence. CrR 7.2(d) (If the sentence imposed departs 3 The State's pending motion to supplement in Friedlund would, if granted, cure the absence of written findings in the present record by supplementing the record with written findings that the trial court entered after we granted review. For the reasons stated below, however, we deny the motion to supplement and therefore must examine Fried/und on the present record. We also deny the State's motion to supplement in Vo/k-although, as explained below, granting the State's motion would not actually cure the absence of written findings in that case. 6 State v. Friedlund, No. 89926-6 Consolidated with State v. Volk, No. 90005-1 from the applicable standard sentence range, the court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law shall also be supplied to the Commission.). We hold that the SRA's written findings provision requires exactly that-written findings. Permitting verbal reasoning-however comprehensive-to substitute for written findings ignores the plain language of the statute. It would also deprive defendants of the finality accorded by the inclusion of written findings in the court's formal judgment and sentence. A trial court's oral or memorandum opinion is no more than an expression of its informal opinion at the time it is rendered. It has no final or binding effect unless formally incorporated into the findings, conclusions, and judgment. State v. Mallory, 69 Wn.2d 532, 533-34, 419 P.2d 324 (1966). A written judgment and sentence, by contrast, is a final order subject to appeal. See State v. Gallegos, 69 Wn.2d 586, 587-88,419 P.2d 326 (1966) (judgment and sentence was self-executing and was the final order in this case). Our court rules reflect this distinction: the superior court's authority to modify a judgment is limited by CrR 7.8 and, if a party appeals, RAP 7.2(e); a trial court's oral rulings are not subject to the same limitations. Allowing courts to ignore the written findings requirement would also run contrary to the SRA's explicit statutory purpose of mak[ing] the criminal justice system accountable to the public. RCW 9.94A.01 0. Without written findings, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the public at large could not readily determine the 7 State v. Friedlund, No. 89926-6 Consolidated with State v. Volk, No. 90005-1 reasons behind exceptional sentences, greatly hampering the public accountability that the SRA requires. Here, the records of both pending cases are devoid of written findings. The remedy for a trial court's failure to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law is to remand the case for entry of those findings and conclusions. In re Pers. Restraint of Breedlove, 138 Wn.2d 298, 311, 979 P.2d 417 (1999). We remand both cases for that purpose.