State Of Washington, V. Jo Wayne Aarhus ( 2021 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 25, 2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 54517-9-II
Respondent,
v.
JO WAYNE AARHUS,
Consolidated with
Appellant.
No. 54524-1-II
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
JO WAYNE AARHUS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, C.J. — Jo W. Aarhus appeals his judgment and sentence, arguing that it contains a
scrivener’s error. In a statement of additional grounds (SAG),1 Aarhus claims he received
ineffective assistance of counsel and “wasn’t in a clear state of mind” when he agreed to drug
court. SAG at 1. We affirm Aarhus’s convictions but remand to the trial court to correct the
scrivener’s error in Aarhus’s judgment and sentence.
1
RAP 10.10.
No. 54517-9-II/54524-1-II
FACTS
In April 2019, the State charged Aarhus with possession of a stolen vehicle and criminal
impersonation under Cause Number 19-1-00666-34 (Cause No. 666-34). On June 10, 2019, the
State charged Aarhus with felony harassment, second degree malicious mischief, and fourth degree
assault under Cause Number 19-1-01085-34 (Cause No. 085-34).
Aarhus agreed to enter drug court. The drug court contracts on his two cases stated that if
Aarhus was terminated from drug court, he stipulated to a bench trial based on “law
enforcement/investigative agency reports or declarations, witness statements, field test results, lab
test results, or other expert testing or examinations such as fingerprint or handwriting comparisons,
which constitute the basis for the prosecution of the pending charge(s).” Clerk’s Papers at 4, 49.
In January 2020, Aarhus was terminated from drug court.
Following a stipulated bench trial, the trial court found Aarhus guilty of possession of a
stolen vehicle and first degree criminal impersonation in Cause No. 666-34. The trial court also
found Aarhus guilty of felony harassment and fourth degree assault in Cause No. 085-34.
However, the trial court found Aarhus guilty of third degree malicious mischief rather than second
degree malicious mischief in Cause No. 085-34.
Aarhus was sentenced on both cases on the same day. The trial court entered a judgment
and sentence in Cause No. 085-34, which correctly identified the third degree malicious mischief
conviction. However, the judgment and sentence in Cause No. 666-34 listed second degree
malicious mischief as an other current conviction.
Aarhus appeals.
2
No. 54517-9-II/54524-1-II
ANALYSIS
Aarhus argues that there is a scrivener’s error in his judgment and sentence on Cause No.
666-34, which incorrectly identifies one of his other current convictions as “second degree
malicious mischief.” Br. of Appellant at 3. The State agrees the judgment and sentence for Cause
No. 666-34 contains a scrivener’s error and should be corrected. We also agree.
A scrivener’s error is a clerical mistake that, when amended, would correctly convey the
trial court’s intention, as expressed in the record at trial. State v. Davis, 160 Wn. App. 471, 478,
248 P.3d 121 (2011), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by In re Postsentence
Review of Combs, 176 Wn. App. 112, 119, 308 P.3d 763 (2013), review denied, 182 Wn.2d 1015(2015). The remedy for a scrivener’s error in a judgment and sentence is to remand to the trial
court for correction. State v. Makekau, 194 Wn. App. 407, 421, 378 P.3d 577 (2016).
Here, the trial court clearly found Aarhus guilty of third degree malicious mischief instead
of second degree malicious mischief as charged. However, Aarhus’s judgment and sentence on
Cause No. 666-34 identifies second degree malicious mischief as an other current conviction. The
record clearly reflects that the trial court convicted Aarhus of third degree malicious mischief
rather than second degree malicious mischief. Accordingly, we agree that there is a scrivener’s
error on Aarhus’s judgment and sentence on Cause No. 666-34.
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS
Aarhus makes two SAG claims. First, he claims he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. Second, Aarhus claims he “wasn’t in a clear state of mind” when he agreed to enter drug
court. SAG at 1.
In his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Aarhus states that his attorney made him feel
as though he had no other choice but to proceed to sentencing. Because Aarhus agreed to a
3
No. 54517-9-II/54524-1-II
stipulated trial in his drug court contracts, he did have to proceed to sentencing after the trial court
found him guilty. Aarhus also claims that he had three attorneys and was “shuffled . . . through
the process.” SAG at 1. But this claim does not inform us of the nature and occurrence of the
alleged error as required by RAP 10.10(c). Therefore, Aarhus’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim fails.
In his second SAG claim, Aarhus contends that he “wasn’t in a clear state of mind when
[he] took the deal for drug court.” SAG at 1. However, because the record before this court does
not contain a verbatim report of proceedings for Aarhus’s agreement to enter the drug court
program, this claim is outside the record on appeal. We do not consider evidence outside the
record on appeal. State v. Linville, 191 Wn.2d 513, 525, 423 P.3d 842 (2018). A personal restraint
petition is the appropriate vehicle for bringing a claim based on facts outside the record. Id.Therefore, we do not consider Aarhus’s second SAG claim.
We affirm Aarhus’s convictions but remand to the trial court to correct the scrivener’s error
in Aarhus’s judgment and sentence on Cause No. 666-34.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
Lee, C.J.
We concur:
Worswick, J.
Sutton, J.
4