FILED
JULY 11, 2017
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 33703-1-111
)
Respondent, )
)
V. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
ROBERT LEE YATES, JR., )
)
Appellant. )
PENNELL, J. -Robert Lee Yates Jr. appeals an order denying a motion for
correction of his judgment and sentence under CrR 7.8. We agree that Mr. Yates's
judgment and sentence is facially invalid as to counts I and II and correction is
appropriate. However, resentencing is unwarranted. This matter is therefore remanded to
the superior court for technical corrections to the judgment and sentence without the need
for Mr. Yates's presence.
No. 33703-1-111
State v. Yates
BACKGROUND
The pertinent facts in this case were set forth in our court's prior unpublished
opinion and need not be repeated. See State v. Yates, No. 33703-1-111 (Wash. Ct. App.
Sept. 27, 2016) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/33703l_unp.pdf.
Our prior opinion determined that Mr. Yates had filed a potentially meritorious petition to
vacate his judgment and sentence for first degree murder because the sentences imposed
exceeded the trial court's legal authority. Believing we lacked jurisdiction to address Mr.
Yates' s successive challenge to his sentence, we transferred his case to the Washington
Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court disagreed with our jurisdictional analysis
l and remanded the matter to this court, noting that because Mr. Yates had obtained a
I decision on the merits from the superior court under CrR 7.8(b), our court properly held
jurisdiction over the matter as an appeal of right. Order, State v. Yates, No. 93772-9
(Wash. Jan. 6, 2017).
Subsequent to the Supreme Court's order of remand, Mr. Yates's case was noted
for consideration by this court, without oral argument, on June 15, 2017. No further
briefing was requested or volunteered.
2
j
l
!
j
No. 33703-1-111
State v. Yates
ANALYSIS
As previously recognized by the Washington Supreme Court, Mr. Yates's
judgment and sentence is facially invalid. In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 180 Wn.2d 33,
38-39, 321 P.3d 1195 (2014). While the sentencing court only had authority to impose a
20-year minimum sentence for counts I and II, it instead imposed a 20-year determinate,
or maximum, sentence for these counts. Id. at 39. The authority for determining the
maximum sentence rests with the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board. Id. (citing
RCW 9.95.011(1)).
The problems with Mr. Yates' s judgment and sentence were not sufficient to
invalidate his guilty pleas. Yates, 180 Wn.2d at 40-41. However, as set forth in our prior
opinion, Mr. Yates has shown sufficient prejudice to justify correction of his judgment
l
I
1
and sentence. Yates, No. 33703-1-111, slip op. at 4.
We therefore remand this matter to the superior court for correction of the
judgment and sentence. However, full resentencing is not required. Mr. Yates has
j
i
merely established a technical flaw in his judgment and sentence. It is well settled, as the
1 law of the case, that Mr. Yates has suffered no realistic prejudice. In addition, in his
Ii briefing and argument to the superior court, Mr. Yates has recognized the superior court
\ has no discretion but to impose indeterminate life sentences. Given these circumstances,
li
.{
1
l
3
l
l
I
i
l
No. 33703-1-111
State v. Yates
correcting counts I and II to reflect indeterminate life sentences (as opposed to
determinate 20-year terms as is currently stated) is a ministerial act not requiring Mr.
Yates's physical presence. State v. Ramos, 171 Wn.2d 46, 48, 246 P.3d 811 (2011).
CONCLUSION
This matter is remanded to the superior court with instructions to correct counts
I and II of Mr. Yates'sjudgment and sentence, along with the recitation of the total term
of incarceration, consistent with the terms of this opinion. Mr. Yates' s presence is not
required during the proceedings on remand.
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.
Pennell, J.
I CONCUR:
5?·cU!Jw
doway,J. ~ , i.
4
No. 33703-1-III
LAWRENCE-BERREY, A.CJ. (dissenting) -Robert Yates seeks resentencing
based on a nonconstitutional error. To be entitled to relief, he must demonstrate that a
fundamental defect has resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice to him. In re Pers.
Restraint of Carrier, 173 Wn.2d 791,818,272 PJd 209 (2012). This standard is met
when a sentencing court imposes a greater sentence than permitted by law. In re Pers.
Restraint of Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d 861, 873, 876-77, 50 PJd 618 (2002).
Here, the sentencing court did not impose a greater sentence than permitted by
law. It imposed a lesser sentence. Mr. Yates has failed to establish that the lesser
sentence resulte.d in a complete miscarriage of justice to him. For this reason, I would
affirm the trial court's order.
Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ.