Opinion ID: 2449321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State's Request To Revoke Sims's SOSSA Constitutes Affirmative Relief

Text: ¶ 12 Affirmative relief normally mean[s] a change in the final result at trial. 2A KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: RULES PRACTICE RAP 2.4 author's cmt. 3, at 174 (6th ed. 2004). While RAP 2.4(a) does not limit the scope of argument a respondent may make, it qualifies any relief sought by the respondent beyond affirmation of the lower court. See In re Arbitration of Doyle, 93 Wash.App. 120, 127, 966 P.2d 1279 (1998) (holding that, when a respondent requests a partial reversal of the trial court's decision, he seeks affirmative relief); cf. State v. McInally, 125 Wash.App. 854, 863, 106 P.3d 794 (2005) (The State is entitled to argue any grounds to affirm the court's decision that are supported by the record, and is not required to cross-appeal.). [N]otice of cross-review is essential if the respondent `seeks affirmative relief as distinguished from the urging of additional grounds for affirmance.' Robinson v. Khan, 89 Wash.App. 418, 420, 948 P.2d 1347 (1998) (quoting Phillips Bldg. Co. v. An, 81 Wash.App. 696, 700 n. 3, 915 P.2d 1146 (1996)). Here, Sims sought reversal of part of the trial court's order. Rather than arguing to affirm the order below, the State conceded error and sought more extensive reversal than what Sims requested as relief. Because the State is seeking partial reversal of a trial court order, not just advancing an alternative argument for affirming the trial court, it is seeking affirmative relief. ¶ 13 We also note that the trial court granted Sims a SSOSA over the objection of the State. The State is now essentially asking to reopen the argument it lost at Sims's sentencing hearing. To allow that would expose Sims to loss of his SSOSA sentence despite the lack of an allegation that he has failed to comply with the requirements of his sentence. [2] Loss of a SSOSA is a significant consequence to defendants. See State v. Canfield, 120 Wash.App. 729, 733-34, 86 P.3d 806 (2004) (observing that a defendant received the greatest penalty the court was empowered to give at that juncturerevocation of his suspended sentence and imposition of the terms of [his original] sentence), rev'd on other grounds, 154 Wash.2d 698, 116 P.3d 391 (2005). Considering the significance of a SSOSA disposition to a defendant and that the State, rather than arguing to affirm, is requesting a more extensive reversal than Sims sought in his appeal, we find that the State is seeking affirmative relief.