Court Opinion

ID: 9898233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:29:19.481494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:58.781992
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,                             No. 84134-3-I

                             Respondent,               DIVISION ONE

                  v.
                                                       UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 GOMER CARL SPOTTEDBEAR,

                             Appellant.

       BOWMAN, J. — A jury convicted Gomer Carl Spotted Bear of one count of

domestic violence third degree assault, committed on November 29, 2021.

Spotted Bear argues he is entitled to resentencing because the State did not

prove the existence of any prior felony convictions used to calculate his offender

score. The State concedes the error. We agree and remand for resentencing.1

       In its presentence report, the State included a written summary of Spotted

Bear’s criminal history, asserting he had five prior felony convictions and was on

community custody at the time of the offense. As a result, it calculated his

offender score at 7 and his standard sentence range at 33 to 43 months. At

sentencing, the court agreed and sentenced Spotted Bear to a special drug

offender sentencing alternative with 19 months of confinement and 19 months of

community custody. Spotted Bear appeals the calculation of his offender score.

       1
          Spotted Bear also claims instructional error. But two months after he filed his
opening brief, the parties discovered he relied on erroneous language in an inaccurate
verbatim report of proceedings. The parties then jointly moved to amend the transcript,
which we granted. Because the amended transcript shows that the trial court did not
give the instruction to which Spotted Bear assigns error, we do not address the issue.
No. 84134-3-I/2

       We review a sentencing court’s calculation of an offender score de novo.

State v. Wilson, 113 Wn. App. 122, 136, 52 P.3d 545 (2002). At sentencing, the

State must prove the existence of prior convictions by a preponderance of the

evidence. State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 909-10, 287 P.3d 584 (2012).2 Such

evidence may include certified copies of prior judgments, comparable documents

of record, or transcripts of prior proceedings. Wilson, 113 Wn. App. at 136. But

bare assertions of a defendant’s criminal history are not enough to satisfy the

State’s burden. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 910.

       Here, the State presented no evidence of Spotted Bear’s prior convictions.

Accordingly, we accept the State’s concession and remand for resentencing. On

remand, both parties may present any evidence relevant to ensure the accuracy

of Spotted Bear’s criminal history. State v. Jones, 182 Wn.2d 1, 10-11, 338 P.3d

278 (2014).

WE CONCUR:

       2
        The State may be relieved of this burden if the defendant affirmatively
acknowledges his offender score and criminal history. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 917.
Spotted Bear did not do so.

                                          2