State of Washington v. Kyle Gene Jarstad ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                 Filed
    Washington State
    Court of Appeals
    Division Two
    October 29, 2024
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION II
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                               No. 58564-2-II
    Respondent,
    v.
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    KYLE GENE JARSTAD,
    Appellant.
    MAXA, J. – Kyle Jarstad appeals the imposition of a $500 crime victim penalty
    assessment (VPA) after his guilty plea for second degree murder, unlawful imprisonment, and
    first degree robbery. Jarstad argues, and the State concedes, that the VPA is improper due to his
    indigency status and recent legislative changes prohibiting the imposition for indigent
    defendants. Jarstad also makes several assertions in his statement of additional grounds (SAG).
    We agree that the VPA must be stricken, and we reject Jarstad’s SAG claims.
    Accordingly, we affirm Jarstad’s convictions, but we remand for the trial court to strike the VPA
    from the judgment and sentence.
    FACTS
    Jarstad pled guilty to second degree murder, unlawful imprisonment, and first degree
    robbery in November 2021 as part of a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the plea
    agreement, the parties jointly recommended that Jarstad be sentenced to 165 months on the
    murder charge. However, at sentencing in June 2023 the trial court rejected the recommendation
    No. 58564-2-II
    and instead sentenced Jarstad to 265 months on the murder charge, which was within the
    standard range.
    The trial court found Jarstad indigent under RCW 10.101.010(3), but imposed a $500
    VPA as part of his sentence.
    Jarstad appeals the imposition of the VPA.
    ANALYSIS
    A.     CRIME VICTIM PENALTY ASSESSMENT
    Jarstad argues, and the State concedes, that the VPA must be stricken from his judgment
    and sentence. We agree.
    Under the law in effect at the time of Jarstad’s sentencing in June 2023, the imposition of
    the VPA was mandatory notwithstanding a defendant’s ability to pay. Former RCW
    7.68.035(1)(a) (2022). However, effective July 1, 2023, RCW 7.68.035(4) now prohibits courts
    from imposing the VPA on indigent defendants as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3). See State v.
    Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d 1, 16, 
    530 P.3d 1048
     (2023). For purposes of RCW 10.01.160(3), a
    defendant is indigent if they meet the criteria in RCW 10.101.010(3). Although this amendment
    took effect after Jarstad’s sentencing, it applies to cases pending on appeal. Ellis, 27 Wn. App.
    2d at 16.
    Here, the trial court found that Jarstad was indigent as defined in RCW 10.101.010(3)(a)-
    (c) during sentencing. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to strike the VPA from Jarstad’s
    judgment and sentence.
    2
    No. 58564-2-II
    B.     SAG CLAIMS
    Jarstad makes a number of assertions in his SAG: (1) the judge changed between his plea
    hearing and sentencing and the new judge was sexist, (2) he cooperated fully and agreed to
    testify against his co-defendants, (3) the prosecutor agreed to a recommended sentence of 165
    months, (4) he would not have pled guilty if he knew he would be given a higher sentence, (5) he
    should have been charged with either first degree assault or assisting in a murder, and (6) he did
    not rob or unlawfully imprison the victim.
    Under RAP 10.10(c), “the appellate court will not consider a defendant’s [SAG] for
    review if it does not inform the court of the nature and occurrence of alleged errors.” Here,
    claims (2), (3), and (5) are too vague and do not inform the court of the alleged errors, and we
    decline to address them under RAP 10.10(c).
    Regarding claim (1), the trial court expressly informed Jarstad when he pled guilty that a
    different judge would preside at sentencing. And there is nothing improper about different
    judges handling the guilty plea and sentencing. In addition, Jarstad does not point to anything in
    the record suggesting that the sentencing judge was “sexist.”
    Regarding claim (4), the trial court expressly told Jarstad when he pled guilty that the
    court did not have to follow the parties’ recommendation. And by statute, the trial court is not
    bound by any recommendations contained in a plea agreement. RCW 9.94A.431(2). Therefore,
    claim (4) has no merit.
    Claim (6) appears to relate to the sufficiency of the evidence. However, we have
    reviewed the record and the evidence clearly supports Jarstad’s unlawful imprisonment and first
    degree robbery convictions.
    3
    No. 58564-2-II
    CONCLUSION
    We affirm Jarstad’s convictions, but we remand for the trial court to strike the $500 VPA
    from Jarstad’s judgment and sentence.
    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.
    MAXA, J.
    We concur:
    VELJACIC, A.C.J.
    CHE, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 58564-2

Filed Date: 10/29/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/29/2024