State of Washington v. Brennan Thomas Platt

FILED
MARCH 19, 2019
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 35637-0-III
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
BRENNAN THOMAS PLATT, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — Brennan Platt appeals from a restitution order directing that he pay
$1. Since he did not challenge the restitution order at sentencing, his claim of error is
unpreserved.
FACTS
By jury verdict, Mr. Platt was convicted of vehicular assault arising from a
motorcycle accident near Yakima in which his passenger, Hayla Eder-Cadden, suffered
severe injuries. At defense request, the trial court declared an exceptional sentence and
imposed a term of two days to be served in jail and 88 days to be served in home
detention. The reason for the home detention was to allow Mr. Platt to continue working
in order to pay his financial obligations. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 773-775.
No. 35637-0-III
State v. Platt
The State sought a “placeholder” restitution award of $1 for Ms. Eder-Cadden,
noting that she had had several surgeries and that additional surgery was a possibility.
The trial court agreed that it was appropriate to enter a placeholder figure of $1, and
expressly restated its thought process for why imposition of an exceptional sentence was
appropriate:
I think that part of my thought process is, Mr. Platt needs to be working so
he can address the situation he has coming with his legal/financial—
obligations, which include restitution.
RP at 774.
The defense did not object to the restitution request at sentencing that morning,
nor at a later hearing that afternoon that was held to settle paperwork issues arising from
the exceptional sentence. The parties worked out language in support of the exceptional
sentence expressly noting that it was not subject to appeal. RP at 782; Clerk’s Papers
(CP) at 583. Defense counsel noted the intent of the language was to preserve the
defendant’s right to appeal from the jury verdict, but “we’ll accept the sentence.” RP at
782.
Mr. Platt timely appealed to this court. A panel considered his appeal without
conducting oral argument.
2
No. 35637-0-III
State v. Platt
ANALYSIS
Despite his stipulation, the sole1 issue Mr. Platt raises in this appeal is a challenge
to the $1 restitution ordered as part of his sentence. CP at 583. We need not decide
whether his challenge is barred by the stipulation since he did not preserve this argument
for review.
“Restitution, as a condition of probation, is primarily a rehabilitative tool. . . .
Though partial compensation may be a concomitant result of restitution, it is not the
primary purpose of such an order.” State v. Barr, 99 Wash. 2d 75, 79, 658 P.2d 1247 (1983)
(internal citations omitted). Restitution is mandatory in cases of personal injury. RCW
9.94A.753(5).
The general rule is that an appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that
was not initially presented to the trial court. RAP 2.5(a); State v. Scott, 110 Wash. 2d 682,
685, 757 P.2d 492 (1988). Even when the issue presented involves a question of manifest
constitutional error, one of the limited exceptions to the general rule, the issue cannot be
considered unless the record adequately presents the issue. State v. McFarland, 127
Wash. 2d 322, 333-334, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).
An order of restitution “does not raise a ‘manifest error affecting a constitutional
right.’” State v. Bower, 64 Wash. App. 808, 810, 827 P.2d 308 (1992) (quoting RAP
1
He also asks that we not award costs to the State. Since the State indicated it will
not be seeking costs, we do not address this argument.
3
No. 35637-0-III
State v. Platt
2.S(a)). Here, Mr. Platt argues that the trial court should have conducted a separate
restitution hearing before imposing the $1 order. He never asked the court to set a
restitution hearing, nor did he challenge the trial court's decision to impose restitution.
His allegation that the court failed to follow a statutory process does not present a
question of manifest constitutional error that this court can review. RAP 2.S(a).
The failure to object to the restitution order, or to the process that established it,
precludes our review of this claim. RAP 2.S(a).
The judgment is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
4