Opinion ID: 4521054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In 2005, Colbert was convicted in Washington state court of one count of rape in the third degree and one count of rape in the second degree. He was sentenced to twenty months on the third-degree count and 136 months to life on the second-degree count, running concurrently. The sentencing court also imposed community-custody terms on 4 COLBERT V. HAYNES both counts. 1 The conditions imposed for community custody included that Colbert pay restitution for his victims’ “crime-related counseling and medical treatment” costs. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, State v. Colbert, No. 56298-3-I, 2006 WL 2048237 (Wash. Ct. App. July 24, 2006), rev. denied, 160 Wash. 2d 1004 (2007), Colbert filed numerous collateral challenges to his 2005 conviction, including five federal habeas petitions, State v. Colbert, No. 77332-1-I, 2018 WL 3434708, at  (Wash. Ct. App. July 16, 2018). In 2014, Colbert challenged in Washington state court two of the community-custody conditions imposed in his sentencing judgment—the victim-restitution condition and an alcohol-prohibition condition. Id. The state argued that both conditions were within the trial court’s authority but that the victim-restitution condition was moot because the victims had not requested restitution. The Washington Court of Appeals dismissed Colbert’s challenge, and on review the Acting Commissioner of the Washington Supreme Court also rejected his challenge, stating in part: [W]hile the State does not concede that the trial court lacked authority to require victim reimbursement as a community custody condition, it has conceded that the condition may be stricken because the victims have not sought reimbursement. Accepting the State’s 1 Under Washington law, a term of “community custody” is “that portion of an offender’s sentence of confinement in lieu of earned release time or imposed as part of a sentence . . . and served in the community subject to controls placed on the offender’s movement and activities by the department.” Revised Code Washington (“RCW”) § 9.94A.030(5); see also RCW § 9.94A.703. COLBERT V. HAYNES 5 concession that this condition may be stricken, this court need not address the merits of the condition. As to the alcohol prohibition, it is expressly permitted by statute without regard for whether the crime was alcohol-related. Former RCW 9.94A.700(5)(d) (2003). .... The motion for discretionary review is denied on the condition that the State take steps necessary to strike the victim cost reimbursement community custody condition. Id. (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). After the Acting Commissioner’s decision, the trial court struck the victim-restitution condition but otherwise left Colbert’s sentencing judgment intact. Id. Colbert appealed, arguing the trial court violated his constitutional rights by changing his sentencing judgment when he was not present and when he did not have counsel. Id. The Washington Court of Appeals denied Colbert’s appeal noting, “the Supreme Court Commissioner did not remand the matter to the superior court” but instead directed the state “to take steps” to strike the victim-restitution condition; an act that “did not involve resentencing and amounted to the prosecutor stipulating to Colbert’s request to strike the condition.” Id. at  2. The Washington Court of Appeals further concluded that removing the victim-restitution condition was “essentially a ministerial act that was not a critical stage of the proceedings.” Id. 6 COLBERT V. HAYNES In May 2019, Colbert sought leave from this Court to file a second or successive federal habeas petition challenging his 2005 sentencing judgment. We appointed counsel for Colbert and directed the parties to address whether removal of the victim-restitution condition created a new judgment, and Colbert filed a supplemental application arguing that a new judgment was created.