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

Heading: State v. Friedlund

Text: The State charged John Friedlund with first degree theft, alleging that he misappropriated over $800,000 belonging to the victim, Frances Swan, by converting the money to his own use. Swan was an old family friend of Friedlund. In 2001, after her husband passed away, Swan requested that Friedlund move into her house and 1 The trial court in Friedlund did enter findings after we granted review. For the reasons explained below, however, we vacate those findings because the trial court lacked authority to enter them under RAP 7.2(e). 2 State v. Friedlund, No. 89926-6 Consolidated with State v. Volk, No. 90005-1 designated him as her primary attorney-in-fact. At the time Friedlund moved in, Swan was 96 years old. Over the following decade, Friedlund gradually took control of Swan's life and finances. In addition to misappropriating Swan's money, Friedlund willfully neglected Swan herself. In 2011, 10 years after Friedlund moved into Swan's house, law enforcement officers responded to a report that no one had seen Swan for several months. Investigating officers found the house in a state of horrific disrepair and observed that Swan (by then 106 years old) was on the brink of starvation. The State charged Fried lund with first degree theft. The information alleged two aggravating factors: (1) Friedlund had abused a position of trust to facilitate the crime and (2) his victim had been particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance. A jury convicted Friedlund on the theft charge and found both aggravating circumstances present. The trial court sentenced Friedlund to 120 months in prison, above the standard sentence range of 3 to 9 months. The trial court explained the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence on the record at Friedlund's sentencing hearing. But when the trial court entered its judgment and sentence, no written findings were entered. Friedlund appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because [t]he trial court's oral opinion clearly and sufficiently articulates the exceptional sentence was imposed based on the jury's finding of the aggravating circumstances, the absence of written findings was harmless and remanding for written findings would 3 State v. Friedlund, No. 89926-6 Consolidated with State v. Volk, No. 90005-1 be a mere formality. Friedlund, 2014 WL 94322, at . We granted review on the exceptional sentence only. 180 Wn.2d 1009, 325 P.3d 913 (2014).