Opinion ID: 2633670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State failed to properly appeal the Court of Appeals reversal of Korum's kidnapping convictions

Text: ś 8 The Court of Appeals dismissed Korum's kidnapping charges, counts 2, 3, 8-12, 18, 19, and 25, because the kidnappings were incidental to the robberies as a matter of law. Korum, 120 Wash.App. at 707, 86 P.3d 166. The State's petition for review sets out three issues, the second of which is whether a court may intervene in a prosecutor's selection of charges merely because some of the charges may merge at sentencing or the court believes that the possible punishment for all the alleged offenses will result in an extremely long sentence[.] [2] State of Wash.'s Pet. for Review (Pet. for Review) at 1. The State argues on this issue under the heading A Court's Ability to Review a Prosecutor's Charging Decision is Extremely Limited. Pet. for Review at 12 (emphasis omitted). The State did not otherwise list the issue of whether the kidnapping charges merged in the statement of issues presented for review section of its petition for review. ś 9 In its supplemental brief, the State argues that the kidnapping charges should be reinstated because they were not incidental to the robberies or, alternatively, that if the charges do merge, the sentences should be imposed on the kidnapping counts rather than the robbery counts. Korum moves to strike the portions of the State's supplemental brief that address the merger of the kidnapping charges, arguing that the State did not properly raise the issue of whether the kidnapping charges were properly dismissed in its petition for review. ś 10 RAP 13.7(b) provides that the Supreme Court will review only the questions raised in ... the petition for review and the answer, unless the Supreme Court orders otherwise .... See Denaxas v. Sandstone Court of Bellevue, L.L.C., 148 Wash.2d 654, 671, 63 P.3d 125 (2003) (an issue first raised in a supplemental brief is not within the scope of review). We note that the State did raise the merger issue in the argument section of its petition for review. Pet. for Review at 16 (Division II's dismissal of the kidnapping convictions, which occurred in conjunction with the robberies but involved victims other than those robbed, conflicts with this Court's majority opinion in State v. Vladovic, 99 Wash.2d 413], 420-22, 662 P.2d 853 (1983).... Review should be accepted to address this conflict. (footnote omitted)). ś 11 However, as noted above, the State did not list the issue of whether the kidnapping charges merged in its concise statement of issues presented for review. RAP 13.4(c)(5) directs petitioners to include [a] concise statement of the issues presented for review. See State v. Collins, 121 Wash.2d 168, 178-79, 847 P.2d 919 (1993) (holding that a petitioner had not properly raised a right to bear arms issue in his petition for review because he broached it only in his argument section, not in his petition's statement of issues as directed by RAP 13.4(c)(5)); Clam Shacks of Am., Inc. v. Skagit County, 109 Wash.2d 91, 98, 743 P.2d 265 (1987) (holding that RAP 13.4(c)(5) requires a concise statement of the issues presented for review and that RAP 13.7(b) limits review only to those issues properly raised in the petition as directed in RAP 13.4(c)(5)); see also State v. Coria, 146 Wash.2d 631, 655 n. 9, 48 P.3d 980 (2002) (Sanders, J., dissenting) (reasoning that according to RAP 13.7(b), this court must consider issues only raised in the petition for review, and that issues are only properly raised according to RAP 13.4(c)(5) if they are in the concise statement of issues and set forth with specificity, and it is not sufficient if they are only raised in the petition's argument section). We conclude that the State only referenced the merger of the kidnapping charges in its concise statement of issues presented for review in relation to prosecutorial discretion and did not clearly raise the issue of whether the kidnapping charges were incidental to the robberies. Therefore, we grant Korum's motion to strike and decline to consider the merger issue because the State did not properly raise the issue within the meaning of RAP 13.7(b) and 13.4(c)(5).