Opinion ID: 2337925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court's Holding Is Inconsistent with Codiga

Text: ¶ 29 This case is not distinguishable from Codiga in a legally meaningful way. In Codiga, the defendant agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the dismissal of two charges, which resulted in a particular standard sentencing range. Codiga, 162 Wash.2d at 917, 175 P.3d 1082. The sentencing range was based on the State's understanding of Codiga's criminal history. Id. at 917-18, 175 P.3d 1082. However, similar to Robinson, Codiga disclosed his felony convictions during plea negotiations, but not his misdemeanors. See id. at 920, 175 P.3d 1082. This led the State to believe one of Codiga's felonies had washed out, to which the defense agreed. Id. at 919, 175 P.3d 1082. ¶ 30 As here, the plea agreement defined criminal history as `prior convictions and juvenile adjudications or convictions, whether in this state, in federal court, or elsewhere.' Id. at 918, 175 P.3d 1082 (quoting CP at 9). The form also provided that `if any additional criminal history is discovered [before sentencing], both the standard sentence range and the prosecuting attorney's recommendation may increase. Even so, my plea of guilty to this charge is binding upon me. I cannot change my mind if additional criminal history is discovered.' Id. (quoting CP at 9). ¶ 31 Like this case, the judge spoke directly with Codiga at the plea hearing, confirmed that he had read the plea form carefully and discussed it with his attorney. Id. After confirming Codiga understood his rights and engaging in the normal colloquy, the judge found the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and found there was a factual basis for the plea. Id. at 919-20, 175 P.3d 1082. As here, the Department of Corrections (DOC) completed a routine presentence investigation report and discovered Codiga's additional criminal history. Id. at 920, 175 P.3d 1082. This increased Codiga's offender score from 7 to 8, therefore increasing the standard range. Id. This discovery was not made known to Codiga at the time. See id. at 921, 175 P.3d 1082; cf. majority at 1237. ¶ 32 At the sentencing hearing, the State and the defense agreed that Codiga had an offender score of 7 (not 8) despite the DOC report. Codiga, 162 Wash.2d at 921, 175 P.3d 1082. The prosecutor soon discovered the discrepancy. Id. When the court asked Codiga whether he believed his 1996 felony conviction washed out, his defense counsel responded that they had believed it had washed, just as Robinson claims here. Id. ¶ 33 The court imposed sentence required by Codiga's full history. Codiga quickly moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he was not accurately informed of the consequences of his plea because the standard sentence range increased between his plea and sentencing. Id. We upheld the trial court's ruling. Id. at 922-31, 175 P.3d 1082.