Court Opinion

ID: 9949573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 21:16:52.870939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:04.888126
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                        DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                                 No. 83256-5-I
                     Respondent.
                                                 DIVISION ONE
       v.
                                                 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
NATHAN RAE HUBER,

                     Appellant.

       PER CURIAM — Nathan Huber appeals from the judgment and sentence entered

upon his jury conviction of one count of kidnapping in the second degree with sexual

motivation. The trial court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole

under the sex offense—or “two strikes”—provision of the Persistent Offender

Accountability Act of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW. The

predicate “strike” was a 1998 Jefferson County Superior Court conviction for an offense

Huber committed as a juvenile. The State acknowledges that it “did not provide the trial

court with the relevant juvenile records to establish that Huber’s 1998 offense was

validly declined to adult court.” It thus concedes that the evidence was insufficient to

support the trial court’s finding that Huber is a persistent offender.

       We accept the State’s concession. Cf. State v. Saenz, 175 Wn.2d 167, 175-76,

283 P.3d 1094 (2012) (where State relies on defendant’s prior conviction as a juvenile

in adult court to seek a persistent offender sentence, it must prove “that either there was

a decline hearing or the hearing was properly waived and the juvenile court entered
No. 83256-5-I/2

written findings that transfer of the case was in either [the defendant]’s or the public’s

best interest” (footnote omitted)).          Accordingly, we reverse Huber’s sentence and

remand to the trial court for resentencing. 1

        Reversed and remanded.

                                         FOR THE COURT:

        1 Because we reverse Huber’s sentence on the basis stated, we need not and do not consider

Huber’s other challenges to his sentence, including his challenge to the victim penalty assessment, the
imposition of which the trial court may reconsider on remand.

                                                 -2-