Court Opinion

ID: 3212717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-13 21:20:46.684392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:36.786006
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                   No. 73539-0-I                      -AC
                                                                                 S2

                      Respondent,                      DIVISION ONE

                                                                                           -fS ~-x\ i
   v.                                                                                CO    •C-', -r "V:.

AUSTIN M. WASISCO (DOB: 12-26-97),                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                                              —60 Wn. App. 534, 537, 805 P.2d 237 (1991).
  2RCW9A.52.030(1).
  3 State v. Johnson. 132 Wn. App. 400, 408, 132 P.3d 737 (2006) (quoting
WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 292 (1971)).
No. 73539-0-1/4

definitions of "building." Consequently, the findings of fact do not meet the

requirements of JuCR 7.11 (d).

       Where, as here, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to

the State, is sufficient to support the omitted findings, "the proper remedy is

vacation and remand to permit the entry of further findings, if appropriate."4 On

remand, the court then determines, without permitting the State to present

additional evidence, "whether the omitted finding should be entered."5

       Citing State v. Souza. the State asserts that "[i]t was clearly the intention

of the Souza court . . . that matters such as these are handled through a remand

without vacating the conviction."6 We disagree. The Souza court expressly

vacated the juvenile disposition and remanded for entry of the omitted findings.7

       Wasisco's statement of additional grounds for review consists solely of

brief and conclusory allegations of error. Some of the allegations, including a

challenge to Coe's testimony, involve credibility determinations that this court

cannot review on appeal.8 Several of Wasisco's allegations appear to involve

    4 Souza. 60 Wn. App. at 541.
    5 State v. Alvarez, 74 Wn. App. 250, 262, 872 P.2d 1123 (1994), affd, 128 Wn.2d 1,
904 P.2d 754 (1995).
    6 Br. of Resp. at 3.
    7 See Souza. 60 Wn. App. at 543; see also Alvarez. 74 Wn. App. at 261, ("we
adhere ... to the rule that vacation and remand, not reversal, is normally the appropriate
disposition when the trial court omits any determination as to an element of the crime
charged").
    8 See State v. Haves, 81 Wn. App. 425, 430, 914 P.2d 788 (1996) (appellate court
defers to trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the
persuasiveness of the evidence).
No. 73539-0-1/5

matters outside the record, which this court cannot address in a direct appeal.9

The remaining allegations are too conclusory to permit review.10

       We vacate the disposition order and remand for the entry of any additional

findings of fact that the juvenile court deems appropriate, based solely on the

evidence already presented.

                                                              £feO •
WE CONCUR:

   T/\cA127 Wn.2d 322, 337-38, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).
     10 See RAP 10.10(c) (appellate court will decline to consider issues in statement of
additional grounds for review if they do not "inform the court of the nature and
occurrence of alleged errors").