Court Opinion

ID: 9897986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:36.13402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:50.440989
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

                                                                                   FILED
                                                                                 MAY 18, 2023
                                                                        In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                       WA State Court of Appeals Division III

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

       STATE OF WASHINGTON,                           )
                                                      )         No. 38781-0-III
                            Respondent,               )
                                                      )
              v.                                      )         PUBLISHED OPINION
                                                      )
       LILTON LAMAR GREEN,                            )
                                                      )
                            Appellant.                )

              FEARING, C.J. — RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c) erases from an offender score any

       previous felony conviction, other than for a sexual offense, “if, since the last date of

       release from confinement . . . , if any, or entry of judgment and sentence, the offender had

       spent five consecutive years in the community without committing a crime.” What if the

       date of sentence for any earlier conviction is more than five years before the next crime,

       the length of the sentence for the earlier conviction carries into the five-year window of

       time, but the State fails to produce evidence of the exact date of release from the earlier

       crime? Appellant Lilton Green argues that the court must employ the date of the
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

       sentence to calculate the time in the community. We disagree. We affirm the superior

       court’s refusal to wash out, from the offender score, two convictions entered more than

       five years before the next criminal act because the sentence for the convictions

       necessarily resulted in Green remaining confined during the five-year limitation period.

                                                  FACTS

              The facts controlling this appeal entail earlier convictions and sentences imposed

       on appellant Lilton Green. On November 29, 1995, the Benton County Superior Court

       sentenced Green on two class C felony convictions of felony telephone harassment. The

       court imposed ninety days of confinement to county jail, which it converted to eighty-

       nine days of partial confinement for work release, while recognizing a credit for one day

       already served. The judgment ran the sentence beginning November 29, 1995, with

       Green not reporting to jail until the availability of a work release bed.

              On December 5, 1995, the Benton County Superior Court filed an amended

       judgment and sentence. We do not know for certain the reason for an amended

       judgment, but speculate the court updated the sentence because of the previous lack of

       the availability of a work release bed. The amended judgment imposed the same

       sentence: eighty-nine days of partial confinement listed as commencing on November 29,

       1995, and recognizing one day of credit for time already served.

              On June 27, 2001, the Benton County Superior Court sentenced Lilton Green on a

       new felony telephone harassment conviction. The judgment and sentence listed the date

                                                     2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

       of crime as December 19, 2000. The superior court sentenced Green to thirty days

       already served.

                                             PROCEDURE

              We move to the prosecution on appeal. In 2021, a jury convicted Lilton Green of

       violating a protection order. At sentencing, the State calculated Green’s offender score as

       seven. In response, Green argued that his two 1995 convictions for felony telephone

       harassment should “wash out.” Therefore, Green asked the court to set his offender score

       at five.

              Lilton Green argued that, although the two 1995 judgments and sentences

       sentenced him to confinement, the State lacked any jail records to establish the date of his

       release. According to Green, the sentencing court needed to assume release on the date

       of sentencing, or November 29, 1995, in accordance with RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c). Five

       years expired between the date of sentencing and the commission of telephone

       harassment on December 19, 2000.

              The State agreed it lacked records as to Lilton Green’s date of release from

       confinement for his 1995 felonies. The State, however, responded that Green could not

       have completed his term of confinement for the convictions more than five years before

       the commission of the December 19, 2000 crime. The State posited that Green was

       sentenced on November 29, 1995. The 1995 judgment and sentence imposed eighty-nine

       days of jail, beginning November 29, in addition to the one day credited to Green. Green

                                                    3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

       must have remained confined until February 26, 1996. He re-offended December 19,

       2000, within five years of February 26, 1996.

              The State recognized the possibility of a generous good time credit, but insisted

       that any possible good time credit would not shorten his confinement to a date more than

       five years preceding December 19, 2000. Even if a work release bed was available for

       Lilton Green on November 29, 1995, for the release to have occurred more than five

       years before the 2000 crime, authorities must have released Green by December 19,

       1995, twenty days after Green entered jail on his eighty-nine-days sentence.

              The trial court concurred with the State’s argument. The court observed a “factual

       impossibility” of Lilton Green’s release from jail in 1995-96 more than five years before

       the December 19, 2000 crime. The trial court included the two 1995 convictions in

       Lilton Green’s criminal history. Nevertheless, the court granted Green an exceptional

       sentence below the standard range because, on two separate occasions, the defendant’s

       prior felony history narrowly failed to wash out.

                                        LAW AND ANALYSIS

              Lilton Green’s sole assignment of error on appeal is the sentencing court’s

       inclusion of the two 1995 felony convictions in his offender score. He repeats his

       contention that, due to the absence of direct evidence as to the date of his release from the

       1995 sentence, this court must assume his release on the date of sentencing, more than

                                                    4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

       five years before his December 19, 2000 telephone harassment. At the least, we must

       assume release on some date before December 19, 1995. We disagree.

             First, we perform some mathematical calculations with dates. Although the 1995

       initial and amended judgments and sentences read that the term of confinement began on

       November 29, 1995, we assume the eighty-nine days of confinement did not begin until

       Lilton Green procured a work release bed. We do not know the date of procurement so

       we give Green the benefit of the doubt and assume his confinement began on November

       29.

             The State recognizes that jail authorities could have afforded Lilton Green early

       release for good-time behavior. In 1995, the maximum good-time credit permitted in a

       county facility could not exceed one-third of a total sentence. Former RCW 9.92.151

       (1990). Good-time is calculated based on the total sentence imposed, not the amount of

       time an offender is incarcerated. In re Personal Restraint of Williams, 121 Wn.2d 655,

       658, 853 P.2d 444 (1993). One-third of a ninety-day sentence is thirty days. So Green

       would be confined for at least sixty days. Green was credited with one day for time

       already served, and sixty days minus one day is fifty-nine days. Thus, the soonest Green

       could have been released from confinement was January 27, 1996. Green could not have

       served his final date of confinement by December 19, 1995.

                                                  5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

              The controlling statute, RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c), declares:

                     [C]lass C prior felony convictions other than sex offenses shall not
              be included in the offender score if, since the last date of release from
              confinement (including full-time residential treatment) pursuant to a felony
              conviction, if any, or entry of judgment and sentence, the offender had
              spent five consecutive years in the community without committing any
              crime that subsequently results in a conviction.

       (Emphasis added.) The italicized portion of the statute, the “trigger clause,” identifies the

       beginning of the five-year washout period as either (1) the last date of release from

       confinement pursuant to a felony conviction, or (2) the date of entry of the judgment and

       sentence. State v. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815, 821, 239 P.3d 354 (2010). Lilton Green

       characterizes the second option as the default provision if and when the State cannot

       affirmatively establish a definitive date of release. We disagree.

              When contemplating the meaning of a statute, we seek to divine the legislative

       intent and interpret the statutory provisions in a way that carries out that intent. In re

       Dependency of Z.J.G., 196 Wn.2d 152, 163, 471 P.3d 853 (2020); In re Dependency of

       G.M.W., 24 Wn. App. 2d 96, 122, 519 P.3d 272 (2022). If the plain language is subject

       to only one interpretation, our inquiry ends. In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 196 Wn.2d 152,

       163 (2020). We derive plain meaning from the context of the entire statute. In re

       Dependency of Z.J.G., 196 Wn.2d 152, 163 (2020).

              We highlight that RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c) references a release date, “if any.” This

       language shows an intent to employ the date of judgment only if the court never

                                                     6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

       sentenced the offender to confinement. The language does not create a trigger date of the

       date of the judgment if the offender was released from jail, but no records confirm the

       exact date of release. The statute affords the sentencing court no discretion in choosing

       the trigger date. The statute does not evidence a preference between the two options. If

       one trigger date is preferred, that date is the release date.

                State v. Schwartz, 6 Wn. App. 2d 151, 429 P.3d 1080 (2018), aff’d, 194 Wn.2d

       432, 450 P.3d 141 (2019) asked the question of whether time spent in confinement for

       failure to pay legal financial obligations interrupts the running of the five-year washout

       period for RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c). Although Schwartz involved a disparate issue, we

       adopt the reasoning employed by the decision with regard to the release from

       confinement always being the measuring date if the offender spent time in jail. We

       wrote:

                         When a statute speaks of “A, if any, or B” the words “if any” can
                reasonably communicate that A is to apply if it exists, and only if it does
                not exist will B apply. That is reasonably communicated by the trigger
                clause. In most cases, there will be a “last date of release from confinement
                . . . pursuant to a felony conviction,” and that will be the trigger. Less
                often, there will be no period of confinement, either because the seriousness
                level and offender score are both low, a sentencing alternative is ordered, or
                the court imposes an exceptional sentence. In those cases, entry of the
                judgment and sentence will be the trigger. The clause cannot reasonably be
                read to create truly alternate dates . . . because the judgment and sentence
                date would always be more favorable and the “last day of release from
                confinement” would never apply.

                                                      7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

       State v. Schwartz, 6 Wn. App. 2d 151, 156-57 (2018) (some alterations in original)

       (footnotes omitted).

              In support of his reading of RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c), Lilton Green forwards the

       principle that the State bears the burden of establishing earlier convictions. State v.

       Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 909-10, 287 P.3d 584 (2012). We note this rule, but further

       observe that the State met its burden to establish a conviction on November 29, 1995,

       with a sentence of eighty-nine days in jail.

              Lilton Green wisely cites State v. Havens, 171 Wn. App. 220, 286 P.3d 722

       (2012), in support of his position. Former RCW 9.94A.760(4) (2009), afforded the State

       ten years in which to enforce legal financial obligations without applying for an

       extension. The ten years commenced on “the offender’s release from total confinement

       or within ten years of entry of the judgment and sentence, whichever period ends later.”

       State v. Havens, 171 Wn. App. 220, 223 (2012). The record did not establish the date of

       Frank Havens’ release from confinement. Therefore, this court held that the ten years

       began on the date of the judgment and sentence. The superior court had entered the

       judgment and sentence more than ten years before the State applied to extend the

       collection deadline.

              The State, in State v. Havens, noted that the judgment and sentence imposed a

       one-year sentence. If the State had released Havens from confinement at the end of the

       one year, the release would have occurred within the ten-year limitation period.

                                                      8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

       Nevertheless, the State never asserted this argument before the trial court. This court

       wrote: “The record is not sufficiently developed to address this new contention.” 171

       Wn. App. 220, 224 (2012). Thus, the court considered the date of the judgment as the

       only date certain to make the beginning of the ten years.

              Although helpful, State v. Havens delivers little solace for Lilton Green. The

       former RCW 9.94A.760(4) added the language, missing from RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c), of

       applying whichever period ends later. The former RCW 9.94A.760(4) lacked the key

       language, from RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c), of the confinement, “if any.” The State did not

       assert any argument about a presumptive release date until the appeal. This court cited no

       decisions in support of its holding.

              We deem Lilton Green’s appeal to entail more an issue of evidence and proof

       rather than of statutory construction. The relevant question becomes whether a judgment

       and sentence may establish the outer boundaries of a confinement period when the State

       cannot prove the actual final date of confinement. RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c) does not

       identify the nature of the evidence needed to prove the date of release.

              The reliability of a judicial filing permits a sentencing court to take notice of facts

       flowing directly therefrom. In re Personal Restraint of Lavery, 154 Wn.2d 249, 256-57,

       111 P.3d 837 (2005). A Washington court may rely on a judgment and sentence alone to

       prove the existence of a prior foreign conviction. In re Personal Restraint of Lavery, 154

       Wn.2d 249, 256-57 (2005). Further, a sentencing court may reference a reliable judicial

                                                     9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

       record to determine facts underlying a prior foreign conviction. State v. Thiefault, 160

       Wn.2d 409, 419-20, 158 P.3d 580 (2007); Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 24-26,

       125 S. Ct. 1254, 161 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2005) (plurality opinion).

               We conclude that the State may rely on a judgment and sentence to establish the

       impossibility that an offense has washed out. A judgment and sentence demonstrates on

       its face whether the sentencing court ordered a period of confinement. Armed with this

       reliable information, a court can discern the possibility that an offender was released

       before a certain date. By referencing applicable early release rules, this court can

       determine from a judgment and sentence alone the earliest possible confinement release

       date.

               State v. Cross, 156 Wn. App. 568, 589, 234 P.3d 288 (2010), vacated on remand,

       166 Wn. App. 320, 271 P.3d 264 (2012), suggests the State possesses the burden to

       disprove a washout. This rule echoes the statutory imperative that the State carry the

       burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the accuracy of the offender

       score. RCW 9.94A.500(1); State v. Wilson, 113 Wn. App. 122, 136, 52 P.3d 545 (2002).

       Assuming, without holding, that the State bears the burden of disproving a washout, we

       conclude the State fulfilled this burden by a preponderance of evidence as to Lilton

       Green’s 1995 convictions not being erased from the offender score.

                                                    10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38781-0-III
       State v. Green

                                             CONCLUSION

              We affirm the superior court’s calculation of Lilton Green’s offender score, and, in

       turn, his sentence for violating a protection order.

                                                      _________________________________
                                                      Fearing, C.J.

       WE CONCUR:

       ______________________________
       Lawrence-Berrey, J.

       ______________________________
       Pennell, J.

                                                    11