State Of Washington, V Larry A. Hayes ( 2013 )

ED
Cou"RT OF APPEALS
DIVJISIO J IJ
20, 13 Noy 13 AM 11: 14
T F 7 S NGTOIN
UT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGT
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, I No. 43207 - -II
2
Respondent,
V.
LARRY ALAN HAYES, I PUBLISHED OPINION
JOHANSON, A. C.J. — We are asked to decide whether a major economic offense sentence
enhancement may be imposed when the trial court instructed the jury that the underlying
conviction could be based on accomplice liability. Because the major economic offense sentence
enhancement does not indicate legislative intent to extend the enhancement to accomplices, we
vacate the sentence enhancement and remand for resentencing. We also direct the court on
remand to correct the judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion.
FACTS
In May 2009, Larry Alan Hayes went to trial after police found evidence that he, or an
accomplice, manufactured several false identifications and credit cards and failed to return
vehicles rented under a false name. State v. Hayes, 164 Wash. App. 459, 464 -66, 262 P.3d 538
2011). The State alleged that Hayes, or an accomplice, committed several offenses, including
but not limited to, leading organized crime and six identity theft counts. Hayes, 164 Wn. App. at
No. 43207 -2 -II
463 -64. Regarding the first degree identity theft charge at issue here, the court instructed the
fury:
1) That on or about [ the] period [ between August 26 and September 11,
2007], the defendant, or an accomplice, knowingly obtained, possessed, or
transferred a means of identification or financial information of Scott Mutter;
2) That the defendant acted with the intent to commit or aid or abet any
crime;
3) That the defendant, or an accomplice, obtained credit, money, goods,
or services that have in excess of $1500 value from the acts described in element
1) and;
4) That any of these acts occurred in the State of Washington.
Resp' t Suppl. Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 146 ( Jury Instruction No. 15) ( emphasis added).
The court also defined accomplice liability: " A person is guilty of a crime if it is
committed by the conduct of another person for which he or she is legally accountable. A person
is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when he or she is an accomplice of such
other person in the commission of the crime." Resp' t Suppl. CP at 142 ( Jury Instruction No. 11).
The State alleged that each count, except for one drug charge, was aggravated by being a
major economic offense. Hayes, 164 Wn. App. at 463. The trial court instructed the jury that to
find that Hayes' s crimes were major economic offenses, the jury had to find at least one of two
factors beyond a reasonable doubt:
1) The crime involved multiple victims or multiple incidents per victim;
or
2) The crime involved a high degree of sophistication or planning or
occurred over a lengthy period of time.
The above factors are alternatives. This means that if you find from the
evidence that any one of the alternative factors has been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to answer " yes" on the special verdict
form. To return a verdict of "yes" the jury need not be unanimous as to which
alternative has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as each juror finds
that at least one alternative has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2
No. 43207 -2 -II
Resp' t Suppl. CP at 177 ( Jury Instruction No. 45).
The jury found Hayes guilty of all counts except one and found that each count, except
one, was a major economic offense. Hayes, 164 Wn. App. at 466. The trial court imposed a
180 -month exceptional sentence on the leading organized crime conviction and concurrent
sentences within the standard range on the other convictions. Hayes, 164 Wash. App. at 466.
On appeal, this court reversed the leading organized crime conviction and two stolen
vehicle possession convictions. Hayes, 164 Wn. App. at 463. This court held in part that the
trial court erred in permitting Hayes to be convicted of leading organized crime even if the jury
found that Hayes was merely aiding and abetting the leader. Hayes, 164 Wash. App. at 463.
Hayes also argued that the exceptional sentence could not stand because it was impermissibly
premised on accomplice liability. Hayes, 164 Wn. App. at 483. This court declined to address
the sentencing issue after reversing the organized crime conviction on which the exceptional
sentence was based. Hayes, 164 Wn. App. at 483. This court affirmed the remaining
convictions. Hayes, 164 Wash. App. at 485.
Hayes returned to superior court for resentencing. The State asked the court to impose an
exceptional sentence again based on the jury' s major economic offense aggravating factor
finding for all the remaining counts and because the facts at trial showed that Hayes deserved an
exceptional sentence. The trial court determined that an exceptional sentence was appropriate
for the first degree identity theft charge based on the jury' s special verdicts that all the crimes
were major economic offenses. Hayes appeals his exceptional sentence.
3
No. 43207 -2 -II
ANALYSIS
I. EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCE AND ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY
Hayes argues that the trial court erroneously imposed an exceptional sentence because it
did not have statutory authority to enter an exceptional sentence when his conviction was based
on accomplice liability.' The State' s sole argument is that the court may rely on accomplice
liability as a. basis for an exceptional sentence when the jury' s special verdict findings support
2
the exceptional sentence . We agree with Hayes and hold that the trial court did not have
statutory authority to rely on the major economic offense sentence enhancement to impose an
exceptional sentence when the jury was instructed that guilt for the underlying offense could be
based on accomplice liability: Accordingly, we vacate the sentence enhancement.
A. Standard of Review
A trial court may sentence a defendant to an exceptional sentence if (1) the jury finds by
special verdict, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more aggravating factors alleged by the State;
and ( 2) the trial court determines that the facts are substantial and compelling reasons justifying
RCW 9. 94A. 537( 3), ( 6); State v. Stubbs, 170 Wash. 2d
5353;
an exceptional sentence. RCW 9. 94A.
117, 123 -24, 240 P.3d 143 ( 2010). To reverse an exceptional sentence, we must find either that
A party generally may not raise issues for the first time on appeal. RAP 2. 5( a); State v. Ford,
137 Wash. 2d 472, 477, 973 P.2d 452 ( 1999). But an illegal or erroneous sentence may be
challenged for the first time on appeal. Ford, 137 Wash. 2d at 477.
2 The State does not argue that sufficient evidence exists to find that Hayes himself committed
the conduct that would support the major economic crime enhancement. Accordingly, we do not
address this issue.
3 RCW 9. 94A.535 has been amended several times since 2009, but these amendments do not
affect our analysis.
11
No. 43207 -2 -II
the trial court record does not support the sentencing court' s articulated reasons, that those
articulated reasons do not justify a sentence outside the standard range for that offense, or that
the length of-the exceptional sentence was clearly excessive. RCW 9. 94A.585( 4).
B. Analysis
The trial court' s imposition of a sentence enhancement generally must depend on the
defendant' s own conduct. State v. McKim, 98 Wash. 2d 111, 117, 653 P.2d 1040 ( 1982). Thus a
defendant' s culpability for an aggravating factor cannot be premised solely on accomplice
liability for the underlying substantive crime without explicit evidence of the legislature' s intent
to create strict liability. McKim, 98 Wash. 2d at 117. In McKim, our Supreme Court held that an
accomplice must have knowledge that another participant was armed with a weapon in order to
apply the deadly weapon enhancement to the accomplice. 98 Wash. 2d at 117. But the jury was
not so instructed and the Supreme Court vacated the enhancement. McKim, 98 Wash. 2d at 118. In
response, the legislature amended the deadly weapon statute to specifically apply to " the
defendant or an accomplice." State v. Bilal, 54 Wn. App 778, 780, 776 P.2d 153, review denied,
113 Wash. 2d 1020 ( 1989).
In State v. Pineda -
Pineda, Division One of this court explained that without. explicit
statutory authorization for accomplice liability to support a sentence enhancement, a defendant' s
own acts must forin the basis for the sentence enhancement. 154 Wash. App. 653, 657, 226 P.3d
164 ( 2010). The issue there was whether the school bus zone enhancement could apply to an
accomplice who was not physically present in the school bus zone. Pineda- Pineda, 154 Wn.
App. at 660. Division One noted that the " accomplice liability statute does not contain a
triggering device for penalty enhancement[ s; thus] the authority to impose a sentence
F
No. 43207 -2 -II
enhancement on the basis of accomplice liability must come from the specific enhancement
statute." Pineda, 154 Wn.
Pineda - App. at 661. As an example, the firearm enhancement statute,
RCW 9. 94A.533( 3) contains language showing legislative intent to extend the firearm
enhancement to accomplice liability by referring specifically to " the offender or an accomplice."
Division One concluded that the school zone enhancement statute did not contain a triggering
device for accomplice liability. Pineda- Pineda, 154 Wash. App. at 664 -65.
Similarly, we conclude that the major economic offense sentence enhancement statute
does not contain a triggering device that would extend its application to a conviction based on
accomplice liability. Hayes' s exceptional sentence was based on the major economic offense
enhancement as defined in RCW 9. 94A.535( 3)( d). It provides, in pertinent part, that
T] he following circumstances are an exclusive list of factors that can support a
sentence above the standard range[:]
d) The current offense was a major economic offense or series of
offenses, so identified by a consideration of any of the following factors:
i) The current offense involved multiple victims or multiple
incidents per victim;
ii) The current offense involved attempted or actual monetary
loss substantially greater than typical for the offense;
iii) The current offense involved a high degree of sophistication
or planning or occurred over a lengthy period of time; or
iv) The defendant used his or her position of trust, confidence, or
fiduciary responsibility to facilitate the commission of the current offense.
RCW 9. 94A. 535( 3)( d). Nothing in RCW 9. 94A.535( 3)( d) explicitly extends responsibility to an
accomplice.
The State urges us not to follow Pineda -
Pineda and argues that in Pineda -
Pineda
Division One misconstrued State v. Silva- Baltazar, 125 Wash. 2d 472, 886 P.2d 138 ( 1994), and
McKim, 98 Wash. 2d 111. The State also cites Division One' s opinion in In re Pers. Restraint of
2
No. 43207 -2 -II
Howerton, 109 Wn. App. 494, 36 P.3d 565 ( 2001), to support its argument to extend the major
economic offense sentence enhancement to accomplices.
But the major economic offense enhancement is unlike the aggravating statutes in
Howerton because there the pertinent statute actually mentioned accomplices, 109 Wash. App. at
499, and here RCW 9. 94A.535 does not mention accomplice liability at all. Nonetheless, the
State argues that the legislature intended for RCW 9. 94A.535 to apply equally to accomplice
liability because the applicable portion of the statute refers to the circumstances of "the current
offense" rather than " the defendant." Br. of Resp' t at 7. The State argues that this signals the
legislative intent that the enhancement can be applied to any participant in the crime. The State
is correct ' that three of the four alternatives in RCW 9. 94A.535( 3)( d) mention " the current
offense" rather than " the defendant:"
i) The current offense involved multiple victims or multiple incidents
per victim;
ii) The current offense involved attempted or actual monetary loss
substantially greater than typical for the offense;
iii) The current offense involved a high degree of sophistication or
planning or occurred over a lengthy period of time; or
iv) The defendant used his or her position of trust, confidence, or
fiduciary responsibility to facilitate the commission of the current offense.
RCW 9. 94A. 535( 3)( d) ( emphasis added). And the two that the court instructed Hayes' s jury on
were ( i) and ( iii). But we are unpersuaded. Because Pineda -
Pineda directs us to look for
triggering language" in a statute, we must look for language specifically invoking accomplice
liability. We do not agree that using the term " the current offense" equates to legislative intent to
apply the sentence enhancement to accomplices. Instead, if the legislature wanted this major
economic offense enhancement to apply to accomplices, it could have easily and clearly
7
No. 43207 -2 -II
mentioned accomplice liability in RCW 9. 94A.535 as it did in the firearm if
enhancement — " the
offender or an accomplice was armed with a firearm." RCW 9. 94A. 533( 3). The legislature also
clearly provided for accomplice liability in the sentence enhancement for crimes committed
while in jail or state correctional facility — if the offender or an accomplice committed the
"
offense while in a county jail or state correctional facility." RCW 9. 94A. 533( 5). Thus, the
State' s argument regarding legislative intent is not persuasive.
Further, the State argues that Pineda -
Pineda incorrectly made a sweepingly broad ruling .
by treating all enhancement statutes the same when it made its decision based on whether the
enhancement statute mentioned accomplice liability and that instead we should read the
particular enhancement statute as a whole to determine the legislature' s intent. But other than
than " the defendant," the State does not
pointing to the language of " the current offense" rather
argue how RCW 9. 94A. 535 applied as a whole supports accomplice liability. We disagree with
the State because every time that " the defendant" is referenced, the legislature chose not to say
the defendant or an accomplice." Also, we must read the entire RCW 9. 94A.535 as a whole
and nowhere in RCW 9. 94A.535 did the legislature choose to reference accomplices.
Thus, the State rests its argument in support of the exceptional sentence solely on the
basis that the major economic offense enhancement applies. to Hayes even when the jury was
instructed that Hayes could be found guilty of the underlying offense based on accomplice
liability. We must reverse a sentence enhancement if the sentencing court' s articulated reasons
do the standard range for that RCW 9. 94A. 585( 4). Here
not justify a sentence outside offense.
the sentencing court based the exceptional sentence on the jury' s special verdict that Hayes' s
crime was a major economic offense. But because Hayes' s conviction was based on accomplice
No. 43207 -2 -II
liability and the major economic offense sentence enhancement statute contains no triggering
language for accomplice liability, the exceptional sentence was improper. We vacate the major
economic offense sentence enhancement and remand for resentencing.
II. CLERICAL ERROR ON JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
Next, Hayes argues that his judgment and sentence erroneously lists four offenses as
current offenses in his criminal history. Hayes asserts that this court reversed counts 9 ( unlawful
possession of a stolen vehicle), 21 ( leading organized crime), and 22 ( unlawful possession of a
stolen vehicle); and the resentencing court dismissed count 20 ( second degree stolen property
possession) on remand. The State concedes error and agrees that the error must be corrected.
The State also argues that Hayes' s first degree identity theft conviction was inadvertently
omitted from the defendant' s criminal history and should be added. We agree and accept the
State' s concession.
A clerical error is one that, if amended, " correctly convey[ s] the intention of the court
based on other evidence." State v. Davis, 160 Wn. App. 471, 478, 248 P.3d 121 ( 2011). The
record reflects the court' s intention here that it did not consider the reversed and dismissed
4
charges at resentencing. And the record reflects the court' s intention to consider the first degree
identity theft charge as a current conviction at resentencing. .
Because the error is clerical in nature, it does not provide an independent ground for
resentencing. We remand to the trial court to enter a corrected judgment and sentence.
4
One unlawful stolen vehicle possession count was charged under a separate cause number and
the court signed a dismissal order on the day of resentencing and indicated that it was doing so at
the resentencing hearing.
9
No. 43207 -2 -II
Reference to the two unlawful stolen vehicle possession counts, one second degree stolen
property possession count, and one leading organized crime count should be stricken from
Hayes' s judgment and sentence on remand. And reference to one first degree identity theft count
should be added to the judgment and sentence' s criminal history section as a current charge.
We vacate Hayes' s sentence enhancement and remand for resentencing. We also direct
the court on remand to correct the judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion.
Johanson, A.C.J.
10