State Of Washington v. Justin Seabolt ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                 COURT OF APPEALS
    JiV13a!n 91-
    20IL
    MAY - 6 AH8 :3!
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF                                               WAs                  T °° GTL   N
    DIVISION II' ``-
    TY
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                                              No. 44665 -1 - II
    Respondent,                           UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    v.
    JUSTIN J. SEABOLT,
    Appellant.
    BJORGEN, J.—         Justin Seabolt appeals from his conviction for bail jumping and from the
    1
    sentence the trial court         imposed.         He   argues   that the trial court ( 1)    erred in the to- convict .
    instruction it gave and (2) made a scrivener' s error as to a term of community custody. The State
    concedes      the   second error.    We affirm Seabolt' s conviction and remand for correction of his
    sentence. 2
    On     August     30,    2012,     the    State     charged   Seabolt    with      unlawful    possession     of
    methamphetamine.          Seabolt was present in court for a pretrial hearing on November 20, 2012,
    and was given notice of another           hearing      set   for December 10, 2012.         He did not appear in the
    courtroom on        December 10, 2012.            The State amended its information to add a charge of bail
    jumping. As to the bail jumping charge, the State proposed the following instructions:
    Possession of a Controlled Substance ( methamphetamine) is a class B or
    class C felony.
    To convict the defendant of the crime of Bail Jumping as charged in Count
    II, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a
    reasonable doubt-
    1
    He does not appeal from his conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine.
    2
    A commissioner of this court initially considered Seabolt' s appeal as a motion on the merits
    under RAP 18. 14        and   then transferred it to     a panel of judges.
    No. 44665 -1 - II
    1)         That on or about December 10, 2012, the defendant failed to appear before
    a court;
    2)         That the defendant was charged with a class B or class C felony;
    3)         That the defendant had been released by court order with knowledge of the
    requirement of a subsequent personal appearance before that court; and
    4)         That the acts occurred in the State of Washington.
    If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved
    beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.
    On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a
    reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to
    return a verdict of not guilty.
    Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 47 -48 ( footnotes omitted).
    Seabolt did not object to the to- convict instruction, but he did object to a State' s motion
    in limine for the trial court to take judicial notice that unlawful possession of methamphetamine
    is   a class    B    or class     C   felony. The court did not grant the motion in limine but did give the
    State' s proposed instructions.
    The       jury   found Seabolt guilty          as charged.      The trial court imposed concurrent 6 -month
    terms    of confinement,              to be   served   in the   Kitsap County      Jail.    It also checked a box ordering
    Seabolt,    as an offender " sentenced             to the custody       of                   f]
    D[ epartment] 0 [ C[ orrections]    (   total term
    of   confinement 12+             months   or more)"     t1 months of community custody CP at 98:
    First, Seabolt argues that the trial court erred in giving the to- convict instruction as to the
    bail jumping charge.3 He contends that the classification of the underlying crime for which he
    had been charged is not an essential element of the crime of bail jumping, but that the particular
    underlying          crime   is   an essential    element of      the    crime of   bail    jumping.   State v. Williams, 
    162 Wash. 2d 177
    , 183 -85, 
    170 P.3d 30
    ( 2007);                       State v. Pope, 
    100 Wash. App. 624
    , 627, 
    999 P.2d 51
    3
    The failure to include an essential element of a crime in a to- convict instruction is an error that
    can be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Mills, 
    154 Wash. 2d 1
    , 6, 
    109 P.3d 415
    ( 2005).
    2
    No. 44665 -1 - II
    2000).      Because the to- convict instruction did not contain the essential element of requiring the
    jury to find that he had been charged with the underlying crime of unlawful possession of
    controlled substances, Seabolt contends that his conviction must be reversed. The State responds
    that Williams and Pope are distinguishable and that having the jury find that the underlying
    crime is a class B or class C felony is sufficient.
    In Williams, the bail jumping to- convict instruction required the jury to find that the
    defendant had been charged with possession of a controlled substance but did not require the jury
    to   find that that      crime was a class     B   or class   C   
    felony. 162 Wash. 2d at 186
    -87.   The Washington
    State Supreme Court held that while the classification of the crime was relevant to the
    punishment to be imposed upon a conviction for bail jumping, the classification of the crime was
    not an essential element of the crime of bail jumping, such that it needed to be included in the to-
    convict      instruction.        
    Williams, 162 Wash. 2d at 188
    .   It held that " a simple identification of the
    alleged crime       is   sufficient."    
    Williams, 162 Wash. 2d at 188
    .
    In Pope,        the bail jumping to- convict instruction required the jury to find that the
    defendant was under " the requirement of a subsequent personal appearance before that court
    regarding      a   felony   matter"     but did   not   further define the term " a    felony   
    matter." 100 Wash. App. at 629
    (   emphasis       in   original).   This court held that an essential element of the crime of bail
    jumping " is that the defendant was held for, charged with, or convicted of a particular crime" and
    that reference to " a felony matter" was insufficient. 
    Pope, 100 Wash. App. at 629
    -30.
    Read together, it appears that Williams and Pope make the specification of the underlying
    alleged crime        an essential       element of      the crime of     bail   jumping. As such, the court erred in
    instructing Seabolt' s jury that it need only find that he had been charged with a class B or class C
    3
    No. 44665 -1 - II
    felony.     But   we conclude          that the error   is harmless.   A constitutional error is harmless when it
    appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged error did not contribute to the verdict. State
    v.   Brown, 
    147 Wash. 2d 330
    , 341, 
    58 P.3d 889
    ( 2002). The omission of an essential element from a
    to- convict instruction is harmless if the element is supported by uncontroverted evidence.
    
    Brown, 147 Wash. 2d at 347
    .    Here, the bail jumping to- convict instruction required the jury to find
    that Seabolt had been charged with a class B or class C felony. A separate instruction informed
    the jury that possession of controlled substances ( methamphetamine) is a class B or class C
    felony. No evidence was presented as to any other controlled substance or any other class B or
    class   C   felony. In order to convict Seabolt of bail jumping, the jury necessarily had to find
    beyond a reasonable doubt that he had been charged with a class B or class C felony and that the
    particular class    B     or class     C   felony   was possession of methamphetamine.          Any error in the to-
    convict instruction in omitting the particular crime Seabolt was charged with was harmless.
    Second, Seabolt argues that the trial court committed a scrivener' s error by checking the
    box that ordered him to serve a 12 -month term of community custody because he had been
    sentenced to serve 12 or more months in the Department of Corrections, when in fact he had
    been    sentenced    to   serve    only 6    months     in the   Kitsap County   Jail.   The State concedes that the
    court checked      the incorrect        box. We accept the State' s concession and remand for correction of
    the scrivener' s error.
    We affirm Seabolt' s conviction but remand for correction of his sentence.
    4
    No. 44665 -1 - II
    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.
    We concur:
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 44665-1

Filed Date: 5/6/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014