Opinion ID: 2770231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ill Motions To Supplement

Text: After we granted review, the superior court in Friedlund belatedly entered written findings and the State moved to supplement the appellate record with those findings. The findings closely track, both in structure and content, the oral reasoning that the superior court provided at Friedlund's sentencing hearing. We passed the State's motion to be decided by the court after oral argument. In Volk, the State moved the superior court to enter proposed written findings after we granted review. Unlike in Friedlund, however, the superior court in Vo/k declined to enter the State's proposed findings. Instead, the court ruled that while the State's proposed findings accurately reflect its sentencing of Mr. Volk, it would not enter those findings because the court does not find it has the authority per RAP 7.2. The State's pending motion seeks to supplement the appellate record with the State's proposed findings and the superior court's ruling declining to enter those findings. As in Friedlund, we passed the motion to the merits. Petitioners filed briefs opposing both pending motions to supplement.