State v. Buck

544 P.3d 506

STATE of Washington, Respondent,

v.Steven Allen BUCK, Petitioner.

No. 101703-1

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued October 17, 2023

Filed March 14, 2024

Appeal from Stevens County Superior Court, Docket No:20-1-00228-8, Honorable Patrick Monasmith, Judge

Andrea Burkhart, Two Arrows, PLLC, 1360 N. Louisiana St. # A-789, Kennewick, WA, 99336-8113, for Petitioner.

Will Morgan Ferguson, Northwest Registered Agent, 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite N., Spokane, WA, 99201-0580, for Respondent.

Sheri M. Oertel, Washington Defender Association, 810 S. 3rd Ave., Suite 258, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Defender Association.

WHITENER, J.

¶1 In 2016, Steve Buck was convicted of felony failure to register as a felony sex offender (Felony Failure to Register) and sentenced to a prison term followed by a mandatory 36 months of community custody. He served his prison term and was released to community custody. In 2021, Buck was again convicted of Felony Failure to Register in addition to escape from community custody (Escape from Community Custody). He was sentenced to a prison term followed by an additional mandatory 36 months of community custody. At sentencing, the trial court ran Buck’s 2021 community custody term consecutively to the 2016 community custody term, requiring Buck to serve 72 months of community custody in the aggregate. This case concerns the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5), which prohibits nonexceptional consecutive terms of community supervision from exceeding 24 months in the aggregate, and whether the sentence’s, 24 month limit applies to, terms of community custody.

¶2 On appeal, Buck argued that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority under the second, sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5) when it imposed consecutive terms of community custody that in the aggregate amounted to 72 months.

¶3 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentence. It concluded that the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5) did not apply to Buck’s sentence because it addresses only community supervision and Buck was sentenced to community custody. State v. Buck, 25 Wash. App. 2d 120, 122, 522 P.3d 1010 (2023).

¶4 We reverse. After employing the canons of statutory interpretation, "community supervision" and "community custody" are synonymous within the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5) for offenses that occurred after July 1, 2000. The second sentence of RCW 9.94A589(5) prohibits nonexceptional consecutive terms of community custody from exceeding 24 months in the aggregate, Accordingly, the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5) applies to Buck’s sentence. We vacate and remand the community custody portion of Buck’s sentence to the trial court for resentencing.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. The 2016 Sentence

¶5 In 2016, Buck was convicted of Felony Failure to Register and was sentenced to 43 months of prison and a mandatory 36 months of community custody under RCW 9.94A.701(1)(a). Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 167-73. Buck was released from prison around April 20, 2020. Tr. of Proc. (TP) at 85. For his community custody obligations, Buck was required to report weekly to his community corrections officer and did so until May 18, 2020. TP at 86-90. On July 1, 2020, the State filed two charges against Buck, Felony Failure to Register and Escape from Community Custody, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. CP at 1-3.

II. The 2021 Sentence

¶6 In January 2021, Buck was arrested on thè Felony Failure to Register and Escape from Community Custody warrant. TP at 308. At his jury trial, Buck testified to the difficulties he had had with his community custody reporting obligations while living in a remote part of Stevens County with a suspended license and no telephone, and trying to survive on an income from doing odd jobs for friends as a mechanic. TP at 236, 240, 242, 245. On July 27, 2021, Buck was found guilty of Felony Failure to Register and Escape from Community Custody. CP at 237. The trial court sentenced Buck to 57 months of prison with a mandatory 36 months of community custody pursuant to RCW 9.94A.701(1)(a) and did not order an exceptional sentence. CP at 239-40. Also, pursuant to RCW 9.94A.589(2)(a), and because Buck failed to complete his 36 month term of community custody from his 2016 sentence, the trial court ran this outstanding 2016 community custody term consecutive to his 2021 current 36 month term of community custody. TP at 369; CP at 240. This resulted in an aggregate of 72 months of community custody. Buck, ‘25 Wash. App. 2d at 121-22, 522 P.3d 1010.

III. Appeal of the 2021 Sentence

¶7 Buck appealed and sought the vacatur and remand of the community custody portion of his 2021 sentence. Appellant’s Br. at 8-9 (Wash. Ct. App. No. 38382-2-III (2022)). Buck requested that his mandatory 36 month community custody terms run concurrently, to not violate the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5), which prohibits nonexceptional consecutive terms of community supervision from exceeding 24 months in the aggregate. Id. The State conceded the issue and requested the same remedy. Resp’t’s Br. at 8-9 (Wash. Ct. App. No: 38382-2-III (2022)). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentence but held that the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5) did not apply to Buck’s community custody terms because it addresses only community supervision. Buck, 25 Wash. App. 2d at 122,522 P.3d 1010.

¶8 Both the State and Buck ask this court to reverse the Court of Appeals. They argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5) did not apply to Buck’s sentence, as the plain meaning, statutory context, and legislative history of RCW 9.94A.589(5) make clear that it did apply. If ambiguous, Buck asks this court to apply the rule of lenity to adopt his interpretation of the second sentence of RCW 9.94A589(5) when used in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), ch. 9.94A RCW: "the, term ‘community supervision’ used in that section unambiguously refers to probation generally, including community custody." Suppl. Rr. of Pet’r at 20.

ANALYSIS

[1, 2] ¶9 The meaning of a statute and whether a sentencing court has exceeded its statutory authority are questions of law that appellate courts review de novo. Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002); State v. Button, 184 Wash. App. 442, 446, 339 P.3d 182 (2014).

I. "Community supervision" is synonymous with "community custody"

¶10 Both the State and Buck ask this court to find that "community custody" and "community supervision" are synonymous under the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5). The Court of Appeals held that the second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5) was inapplicable to Buck’s sentence, as he was sentenced to community custody and not community supervision. Buck, 25 Wash. App. 2d at 124, 522 P.3d 1010.

¶11 The second sentence of RCW 9.94A.589(5) states, "Except for exceptional sentences as authorized under RCW 9.94A.535, if two or more sentences that run consecutively include periods of community supervision, the aggregate of the community supervision period shall not exceed twenty-four months." In other words, if there is more than one term of community supervision owed and those terms are running consecutively, the total of those terms cannot exceed 24 months, unless the court makes an exceptional sentence finding.

¶12 To find whether community supervision is in fact synonymous with community custody, we apply the canons of statutory interpretation.

A. Statutory interpretation — the plain meaning of "community supervision"

[3–5] ¶13 The fundamental objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and carry out the legislature’s intent. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC146 Wash.2d at 9, 43 P.3d 4. If the statute’s meaning is plain on its face, then we give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent. Id. at 9-10, 43 P.3d 4. "To determine the ‘plain meaning’ of a statute, we look to the text, the context of the statute, related statutory provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole." State v. Valdiglesias LaValle, 2 Wash.3d 310, 318, 535 P.3d 856 (2023) (citing State v. Haggard, 195 Wash.2d 544, 548, 461 P.3d 1159 (2020)).

[6] ¶14 "Community supervision" is not defined within chapter 9.94A RCW, therefore, we may use a dictionary to discern the plain meaning of an undefined statutory term, In re Dei of D.H., l,Wash.3d 764, 776-77, 533 P.3d 97 (2023). In 1988, the legislature added the prohibition of nonexceptional consecutive periods of community supervision exceeding 24 months in the aggregate. LAWS OF 1988, ch. 143, § 24. "Community" is defined as "society at large." Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 460 (1981). "Supervision" is defined as the "act, process, or occupation of supervising." Id. at 2296. Relying on these definitions, "community supervision" within RCW 9.94A.589(5) is any "act, process, or occupation of supervising" persons within "society at large." This definition would include community custody. As defined in RCW 9.94A.030(5), "community custody" is a "portion of an offender’s sentence … served in the community subject to controls placed on the offender’s movement and activities by the department." Those placed on community custody are supervised by community correction officers, who are "responsible for carrying out specific duties in supervision of sentenced offenders and monitoring of sentence conditions." RCW 9.94A.030(4).

¶15 The neighboring RCW chapter, chapter 9.94B RCW, contains a statutory, definition of "community supervision." "Community supervision" is defined as

a period of time during which a convicted offender is subject to crime-related prohibitions and other sentence conditions imposed by a court pursuant to this chapter or RCW 16.52.200(6) or 46.61.524.

BCW 9.94B.020(2) (reviser’s note omitted). The legislators purpose for this neighboring chapter and its provisions are explained in...