State Of Washington, V. Jacobi Lynn Weekly ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 85903-0-I
Respondent.
DIVISION ONE
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JACOBI LYNN WEEKLY,
Appellant.
PER CURIAM — Jacobi Weekly appeals a 2023 order denying a sentence
adjustment pursuant to the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in State v.
Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021) (holding that former RCW 69.50.4013(1),
the statute criminalizing simple drug possession, is unconstitutional and void). He
argues that even though the court decided that the originally-imposed sentence
remained appropriate despite a reduction of his offender score, the court was required
to enter a new judgment and sentence. He also claims that the resentencing court
erred by failing to enter written findings to support the exceptional sentence above the
standard range in compliance with RCW 9.94A.535. The State concedes error as to
both issues. We accept the concessions and remand for entry of a new judgment and
sentence and written findings in support of the exceptional sentence imposed.
FACTS
In 2019, a jury convicted Weekly as charged of two counts of rape in the second
degree, assault in the second degree, and three counts of witness tampering. The
No. 85903-0-I/2
sentencing court determined that Weekly’s offender score was 24, based on 43 prior
convictions. The court imposed an indeterminate sentence, with an exceptional
minimum term of 340 months. The court indicated at sentencing that an exceptional
sentence was warranted because of Weekly’s multiple current offenses and high
offender score, which resulted in some current offenses going unpunished. See RCW
9.94A.535(2)(c) (exceptional sentence may be based on a finding that multiple current
offenses and a high offender score results in some current offenses going unpunished).
Weekly appealed. State v. Weekly, No. 53583-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. February 23,
2022), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/535831.pdf. Among other things,
Weekly challenged his sentence because his offender score included prior convictions
subsequently invalidated by the decision in Blake. Id. at 14. Although Weekly’s
offender score would still exceed 9 without the invalidated prior convictions, the court
concluded that Weekly should be resentenced because the record did not clearly
indicate that the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence if the
offender score had been lower. Id. at 15. The court also determined it was
unnecessary to address the absence of written findings to support the exceptional
sentence, in view of the remand for resentencing. Id. at 15, n. 2.
The resentencing court concluded that Weekly’s reduced offender score did not
change its view of the appropriate sentence. Because the original 2019 judgment and
sentence reflected that Weekly’s offender score was “9+”, which was still true after
excluding the prior invalidated convictions, the court entered an order denying a
sentence adjustment under Blake, but not a new judgment and sentence. The order
provides that “all terms of the Judgment and Sentence dated July 12, 2019, shall remain
-2-
No. 85903-0-I/3
in effect.” Weekly again appeals.
DISCUSSION
Weekly contends that despite its decision to impose the same sentence, the
resentencing court was required to enter a new judgment and sentence and enter
written findings and conclusions to support the imposition of an exceptional sentence.
It is undisputed that in Weekly’s first appeal, the court reversed his sentence and
remanded for resentencing to address the impact of the Blake decision. “‘[R]emand for
resentencing renders the prior judgment and sentence void and results in a new final
judgment, which is appealable as a matter of right.’” State v. Delbosque, 195 Wn.2d
106, 126, 456 P.3d 806 (2020) (quoting State v. Amos, 147 Wn. App. 217, 224 n.1, 195
P.3d 564 (2008) (citations omitted)). In other words, remand and resentencing means
that a defendant’s “entire sentence [is] reversed, or vacated ... [and] the finality of the
judgment is destroyed.” State v. Harrison, 148 Wn.2d 550, 562, 61 P.3d 1104 (2003)
(concluding that collateral estoppel did not apply because defendant’s prior sentence
“ceased to be a final judgment on the merits”). Since reversal and remand of Weekly’s
2019 judgment and sentence rendered that judgment “void” and destroyed its finality,
we accept the State’s concession and remand for entry of a new judgment and
sentence that accurately reflects Weekly’s criminal history.
There is also no dispute that the exceptional minimum term is unsupported by
written findings. Whenever the sentencing court imposes a sentence that is outside the
standard range, statute requires that the court “shall set forth the reasons for its
decision in written findings of fact and conclusions of law.” RCW 9.94A.535 (emphasis
added). Our supreme court has explained that “verbal reasoning—however
-3-
No. 85903-0-I/4
comprehensive” does not comply with the statutory mandate. State v. Friedlund, 182
Wn.2d 388, 393-94, 341 P.3d 280 (2015). As the State concedes, the remedy for the
failure to supply findings to support an exceptional sentence is remand for entry of such
findings. Friedlund, 182 Wn.2d at 395; In re Pers. Restraint of Breedlove, 138 Wn.2d
298, 311, 979 P.2d 417 (1999).
We remand for entry of a new judgment and sentence and for entry of written
findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the sentence imposed.
FOR THE COURT:
-4-