Court Opinion

ID: 9898518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:31:14.939917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:18.724152
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                       No. 83721-4-I

                        Respondent,        DIVISION ONE

       v.
                                           UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HUSSEIN SALIM ALI,

                        Appellant.

       SMITH, C.J. — RCW 9.94A.505(6) provides defendants credit for all time

served in confinement on a criminal charge, regardless of whether that time is

served before or after sentencing. Hussein Ali was charged with two counts of

first degree child molestation and agreed to a stipulated bench trial on

documentary evidence. Before trial, Ali absconded from the United States and

was eventually apprehended in the Netherlands. Ali was held in custody in the

Netherlands while he contested extradition but once extradited, the trial court

refused to grant Ali credit for his time served in confinement abroad. It also

indicated its intention to waive all discretionary fees because Ali is indigent, but it

failed to do so in the written sentence. We conclude the court erred in not

granting Ali credit for time served and in failing to waive discretionary fees in the

written sentence and remand.
No. 83721-4-I/2

                                       FACTS

       Hussein Ali was charged with two counts of first degree child molestation

in 2017. Ali waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated in December 2017 to a

bench trial on agreed documentary evidence. The court accepted the stipulation

and continued the bench trial until March 1, 2018.

       Ali fled the country before his trial date and the court issued a warrant for

his arrest. Ali was eventually apprehended in the Netherlands in June 2019 and

held in custody for over two years while he contested extradition proceedings. In

November 2021, following several appeals, the Dutch Supreme Court issued a

final ruling in support of extradition and Ali was extradited back to the United

States. At a warrant return hearing in November 2022, the State added a third

charge—third degree assault of a child.

       At his bench trial in February 2022, Ali pleaded guilty to all three charges.

The court followed the parties’ agreed recommendation and sentenced Ali to

concurrent indeterminate sentences of 96 months to life on each of the two first

degree child molestation counts. The court also imposed lifetime community

custody on those counts, 12 months community custody for the third degree

assault of a child count, and mandatory legal financial obligations (LFOs). The

court stated its intent to waive all discretionary fees at Ali’s sentencing hearing.

The written judgment and sentence, however, nonetheless imposed community

custody supervision fees.

                                          2
No. 83721-4-I/3

       Ali requested 901 days credit for the time he spent in custody in the

Netherlands. The court refused to grant this request. It explained:
               I can’t find the logic or the justice or the common sense to
       give somebody credit for being in custody in another nation while
       fighting extradition to the United States.
              ...
               I’m not going to give him credit for his extradition
       proceedings. He was on the run for 1,345 days. He spent 902 of
       those days in custody in the Netherlands. He was enjoying himself
       and living a life, presumably, for 443 of those days or doing
       something. I’m not giving him credit for the 902 days. I just don’t
       think it’s appropriate. I don’t think it’s right.

       Ali appeals.

                                     ANALYSIS

       Ali raises two issues on appeal. He contests the trial court’s refusal to

provide him credit for time served in the Netherlands, asserting that he is entitled

to credit for pre-sentence detention. He also contends that the court erred when

it imposed community custody supervision fees on him in his judgment and

sentence when it had previously indicated its intent to waive those fees. We

agree with Ali and remand for entry of an amended judgment and sentence.

                               Credit for Time Served

       Ali contends that he has a constitutional right and a statutory right, under

RCW 9.94A.505(6), to credit for time served in the Netherlands. The State

asserts that RCW 9.95.060 and RCW 9.94A.507(4) permit a court to deny credit

for a serious sex offense and that there is no federal right to credit for time

served. We conclude that Ali has a statutory right to credit and therefore decline

to reach whether a constitutional right to credit exists.

                                          3
No. 83721-4-I/4

       RCW 9.94A.505(6) mandates that defendants receive credit for all time

served in confinement on a criminal charge, whether that time is served before or

after sentencing. State v. Enriquez-Martinez, 198 Wn.2d 98, 101, 492 P.3d 162

(2021). It provides that “[t]he sentencing court shall give the offender credit for all

confinement time served before the sentencing if that confinement was solely in

regard to the offense for which the offender is being sentenced.” RCW

9.94A.505(6). This right to credit includes time spent in custody in another

jurisdiction so long as the detention time is solely in regard to the Washington

offense. State v. Brown, 55 Wn. App. 738, 757, 780 P.2d 880 (1989). We

review de novo a trial court’s decision to award a defendant credit for time

served. State v. Swiger, 159 Wn.2d 224, 227, 149 P.3d 372 (2006).

       Here, the plain language of RCW 9.94A.505(6) requires that Ali receive

credit for his time spent in confinement in the Netherlands. The statute does not

specify where confinement occurs, only that it needs to be “solely in regard to the

offense.” In this case, it is undisputed that Ali’s confinement in the Netherlands

was solely because of his Washington charges.

       Still, the State urges us to conclude that RCW 9.95.060 and RCW

9.94A.507(4) preclude Ali from receiving credit. But neither of those statutes is

applicable here. RCW 9.95.060—which concerns when a sentence begins to

run—applies only to convicted persons: “When a convicted person . . . . If such

convicted person . . . .”) (Emphases added). Ali had not yet been convicted

when he fled the country. Likewise, RCW 9.94A.507(4)—which provides

                                          4
No. 83721-4-I/5

guidelines for sentencing of sex offenders—concerns persons “sentenced” under

subsection three of that section and requires they serve their sentence in a

Washington State facility: “A person sentenced under subsection (3) . . .”

(Emphasis added). Again, Ali had not yet been convicted and therefore had not

been sentenced when he fled the country. RCW 9.94A.505(6) controls and

mandates Ali receive credit for his time spent in confinement with regard to this

offense.

                          Discretionary Supervision Fees

       Ali asserts that the court waived all discretionary fees at sentencing and

that the judgment and sentence erroneously ordered him to pay DOC supervision

fees. The State concedes that the supervision fees should be stricken from the

judgment and sentence.

       Supervision fees are discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs),

waivable by the trial court. State v. Bowman, 198 Wn.2d 609, 629, 498 P.3d 478

(2021). It is procedural error for a court to impose a discretionary fee where it

had otherwise agreed to waive such fees. Bowman, 198 Wn.2d at 629.

       At sentencing, the court stated: “I’ll order the $500 victim penalty

assessment, the DNA fee, all other fines, fees, costs, and assessments waived.”

Though the court stated its intent to waive “all other fines, fees, costs, and

assessments,” the judgment and sentence did not reflect this decision. Because

the court indicated its intent to waive discretionary fees on the record, the court

                                          5
No. 83721-4-I/6

committed a scrivener’s error by not waiving the fees in the judgment and

sentence.

        We remand for the trial court to credit Ali for time served in confinement in

the Netherlands and to amend the judgment and sentence to strike discretionary

fees.

WE CONCUR:

                                          6