Opinion ID: 2363816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Anticipatory felony offenses under RCW 9.94A.525(4)

Text: ¶ 8 We review questions of statutory construction de novo. State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wash.2d 614, 621, 106 P.3d 196 (2005). Only if the language of a statute is amenable to more than one reasonable interpretation is it deemed ambiguous, and we then turn to legislative history, principles of statutory construction, and case law to guide our interpretation. ¶ 9 Both Wilson and the State agree that the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the statute is unsupported by normal rules of grammar. The subsection at issue in RCW 9.94A.525 states: (4) Score prior convictions for felony anticipatory offenses (attempts, criminal solicitations, and criminal conspiracies) the same as if they were convictions for completed offenses. (Emphasis added.) ¶ 10 RCW 9.94A.525 offers only one reasonable interpretation. When a noun is placed in front of another noun or phrase, the noun acts as an adjective to modify the noun or phrase that follows. THE Chicago Manual of Style 5.22 (16th ed.2010). Felony therefore modifies anticipatory offense, requiring the anticipatory offense itself to be a felony, not a misdemeanor. To give the meaning the Court of Appeals chose, the statute would instead reference anticipatory offenses of felonies. ¶ 11 The State further argues that a well-grounded rule of statutory interpretation counsels against the Court of Appeals' interpretation. The State argues that every word in a statute must be accorded meaning. See Roggenkamp, 153 Wash.2d at 621, 106 P.3d 196. According to the State, if the legislature intended for all anticipatory offenses to be included in the offender score calculation, then the word felony would have no meaning within the statute. In essence, the word felony becomes superfluous. Because the statute cannot be interpreted to contain meaningless words, the State concludes that felony must be read to modify anticipatory offense and that such a reading requires that the offense itself constitute a felony. We agree with this interpretation and reverse the Court of Appeals on this issue and clarify that any anticipatory offenses counted in an offender's score must be felonies themselves, not merely associated with other crimes that are felonies.