Opinion ID: 1192509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: remand instructions

Text: Finally, the majority has remanded this matter to the trial court for resentencing with instructions that the trial court may reconsider whether to run sentences for these crimes consecutively. RCW 9.94A.400(1)(a) discusses the treatment of current offenses and concurrent/consecutive sentencing. The section distinguishes between current offenses which are same criminal conduct and those which are not. Specifically, it provides that if current offenses encompass the same criminal conduct then those current offenses shall be counted as one crime. Sentences imposed under this subsection shall be served concurrently. RCW 9.94A.360(6)(a) provides that [p]rior adult offenses which were found, under RCW 9.94A.400(1)(a), to encompass the same criminal conduct, shall be counted as one offense, the offense that yields the highest offender score.  (Emphasis added.) Read together, RCW 9.94A.400(1)(a) and 9.94A.360(6)(a) strongly suggest that treating current offenses involving same criminal conduct as one offense precludes sentences from being run consecutively. This court has never addressed the question of whether offenses which encompass same criminal conduct may be run consecutively, nor have the parties briefed the issue. In fact, the issue only arises because the majority rejects the Worl I decision and declares the offenses in this case encompass same criminal conduct. I do not agree that the court should essentially decide this issue without briefing by the parties. Moreover, questionable instructions regarding consecutive sentences ensures a Worl III. Worl II correctly decided that an exceptional sentence is precluded here by the real facts doctrine and, accordingly on remand, the trial court should impose a standard range sentence. ALEXANDER and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.