State v. Lewis ( 2015 )

This opinion was flied for record
at '8:ooeoo on £'pt. \PI ~D\S
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
)
Respondent, ) No. 91180-1
)
v. ) EnBanc
)
ADAM CHIEF LEWIS, )
) Filed SEP 1 0 2015
Petitioner. )
)
PER CURIAM - Adam Lewis challenges two portions of a Court of Appeals
opinion denying him credit for time served awaiting trial on his burglary and assault
charges. After we granted review, the State conceded that Lewis is entitled to 387
days of additional time served. We accept the State's concession, strike oral
argument, and remand to the trial court for sentencing in accordance with this opinion.
FACTS
Adam Lewis was arrested for multiple crimes on May 13,2011. Two weeks
later, he was charged with nine crimes (mostly burglary and assault) under two cause
numbers. Unable to make bail, he remained incarcerated awaiting trial on those
charges for more than a year. While Lewis was awaiting trial on the assault and
State v. Lewis
No. 91180-1
burglary charges, the prosecutor charged him with the additional crime of failure to
register as a sex offender. For the next 387 days, he was in confinement awaiting trial
on all three sets of charges.
Lewis eventually pleaded guilty to the additional charge-failure to register as
a sex offender-on August 31, 2012. The trial court sentenced him to 50 months and
gave him credit for the 3 87 days that he had been in confinement awaiting trial on all
three sets of charges. Lewis began serving his sentence for failure to register as a sex
offender that same day. He then pleaded guilty to burglary (and related charges) on
October 26, 2012, and to assault (and related charges) on November 5, 2012. He was
sentenced for those crimes on December 14, 2012. When the trial judge sentenced
Lewis on those charges, he gave Lewis credit for all of the time he had served from
the date of his original arrest for burglary and assault (May 13, 2011) to the date of his
sentencing on the burglary and assault charges (December 14, 2012). That credit for
time served included the 3 87 days that Lewis served awaiting trial on all three sets of
charges, as well as the 105 days that Lewis served after he was sentenced for failure to
register as a sex offender. The judge indicated that all of the sentences should be
served concurrently.
The State appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by giving Lewis credit for
all of that time served on his burglary and assault charges; the Court of Appeals
agreed. State v. Lewis, 185 Wash. App. 338, 346-47, 344 P.3d 1220 (2014). First, the
2
State v. Lewis
No. 91180-1
Court of Appeals reversed the decision to credit the 387 days of time served toward
the assault and burglary sentences. I d. at 346. It looked to the statute's language that
allows credit for time served prior to sentencing only if the confinement was "'solely
in regard to the offense for which the offender is being sentenced."' Id. at 343
(quoting RCW 9.94A.505(6)). The Court of Appeals noted that a strict construction
of that language (i.e., denying credit for time served to any person charged with more
than one offense) would violate due process and equal protection. I d. at 345.
However, the Court of Appeals nonetheless reasoned that since Lewis had already
received credit for those 3 87 days toward his sentence for failure to register as a sex
offender, giving him credit toward his assault and burglary sentences would result in
Lewis receiving "double credit." I d. at 346. Second, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision to credit the 105 days that Lewis served on his failure to register as a sex
offender sentence toward the assault and burglary charges. ld. at 347. The court ruled
that during those 105 days, Lewis was serving his sentence for failure to register as a
sex offender, not simply awaiting trial on the assault and burglary charges. Jd.
Lewis petitioned for our review, contending that both portions of the Court of
Appeals' holding should be reversed on equal protection grounds. We granted
review. State v. Lewis, 183 Wn.2d 1007,349 P.3d 857 (2015). In its supplemental
brief, the State now concedes that for purposes of Lewis's assault and burglary
3
State v. Lewis
No. 91180-1
sentences, equal protection entitles him to credit for the 3 87 days he served prior to
being sentenced on any charge.
ISSUES
1. Should we accept the State's concession that Lewis is entitled to credit for
time served while awaiting trial on multiple charges?
2. Is Lewis constitutionally entitled to credit for time served on his assault and
burglary sentences after he began serving a sentence on a different charge?
ANALYSIS
1. We Accept the State's Concession That Lewis Is Entitled to Credit for Time
Served While Awaiting Trial on Multiple Charges
The State now concedes that Lewis is constitutionally entitled to credit for time
served on his assault and burglary sentences for the 3 87 days that he was incarcerated
awaiting trials on the assault, burglary, and failure to register as a sex offender
charges. As the State explains, denying Lewis credit for those 387 days would result
in him serving a longer sentence than if he had been able to make bail on the various
charges. If he had been able to make bail, he would have begun serving time only
after he was sentenced. Since he received concurrent sentences, any time served after
sentencing would apply toward all of his sentences. But since Lewis was unable to
make bail, he began serving time prior to trial. If such pretrial detention applied to
only one of his sentences rather than all three, he would be treated differently based
solely on his ability to make bail. The State concludes that such a result is precluded
4
State v. Lewis
No. 91180-1
by our long-standing rule from In re Habeas Corpus ofReanier, 83 Wash. 2d 342, 517
P.2d 949 (1974). Under Reanier, a person unable to obtain pretrial release may not be
confined for a longer period of time than a person able to obtain pretrial release
without violating due process and equal protection. Id. at 346. We accept the State's
concession and remand for Lewis to receive credit for those 3 87 days of time served
on his assault and burglary sentences.
2. The Court ofAppeals Properly Held That Lewis Is Not Constitutionally
Entitled to Credit for Time Served after He Began Serving a Sentence
Lewis contends that he is constitutionally entitled to receive credit for time
served for his assault and burglary sentences for the time when he was actually
serving his sentence for failure to register as a sex offender. The Court of Appeals
correctly found that principles of equal protection do not entitle him to such credit.
Lewis's incarceration beginning on August 31, 2012, was due to his sentence for
failure to register as a sex offender. As the Court of Appeals noted,
[T]he distinction here is between a person being confined as the result of
a sentence and a person being confined as the result of the inability to
secure bail. This distinction is unrelated to the prohibited distinction
between rich and poor that would violate the constitutional principles
underlying credit for time served.
Lewis, 185 Wash. App. at 347 (citing State v. Alejandro Medina, 180 Wn.2d 282,292-
93, 324 P.3d 682 (2014)). The Court of Appeals properly applied our case law when
it held that Lewis is not constitutionally entitled to credit for time served after he
began serving a sentence. We affirm.
5
State v. Lewis
No. 91180-1
CONCLUSION
We accept the State's concession that for purposes of the burglary and assault
sentences, Lewis is entitled to credit for the 3 87 days he served awaiting trial on
multiple charges. With regard to the second issue, the Court of Appeals properly
applied our case law and concluded that Lewis was not constitutionally entitled to
credit for time served on his burglary and assault sentences after he began serving his
sentence for failure to register as a sex offender. We strike oral argument and remand
to the superior court for sentencing in accordance with this opinion.
6