Court Opinion

ID: 4925399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-23 21:54:33.18106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:58:27.763294
License: Public Domain

Remanded withinstructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R.D. Spearman challenges the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty by jury verdict of the crimes of promoting prostitution in the first degree and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver in King County No. 06-1-10858-9. His personal restraint petition was referred to a panel of this court for determination on the merits. RAP 16.11(b). We grant his petition and remand for clarification of the judgment and sentence in accordance with In re Pers. Restraint ofBrooks, 166 Wn.2d 664, 211 P.3d 1023 (2009).
Spearman asserts that this sentence was invalid because the combined term of confinement and community custody could exceed that statutory maximum, in violation of RCW 9.94A.505(5).
In Brooks, our Supreme Court held that
 when a defendant is sentenced to a term of confinement and community custody that has the potential to exceed the statutory maximum for the crime, the appropriate remedy is to remand to the trial court to amend the sentence and explicitly state that the combination of confinement and community custody shall not exceed the statutory maximum.
Brooks, 166 Wn.2d at 675. When clarified in this manner, a sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and is not indeterminate or otherwise invalid. Brooks,166 Wn.2d at 673-74; see also State v. Sloan,121 Wn. App. 220, 223, 87 P.3d 1214 (2004).
We therefore grant Spearman's petition and remand this matter to the trial court solely for entry of an amended judgment and sentence in accordance with Brooks that expressly states the combination of confinement and community custody shall not exceed the statutory maximum.
Remanded.