Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
July 25, 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 49479-5-II
Respondent,
v.
JARQUEICA IMAN HICKS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
JOHANSON, J. — Jarqueica Iman Hicks appeals her judgment and sentence for her fourth
degree assault and third degree malicious mischief convictions. On appeal, Hicks contends—and
the State concedes—that the sentencing court exceeded its authority by ordering Hicks to pay $100
to the Kitsap County Expert Witness Fund and that the judgment and sentence contains a
scrivener’s error. We accept the State’s concession and remand to the sentencing court to strike
the expert witness fund obligation and to correct the scrivener’s error in the judgment and sentence.
FACTS
The State charged Hicks with second degree assault (count I), fourth degree assault (count
II), and third degree malicious mischief (count III) arising out of a domestic dispute. At trial, the
No. 49479-5-II
State called four witnesses to testify. The defense called Hicks and one other witness to testify.
All of the witnesses testified as lay witnesses. No witness testified as an expert witness.
The jury found Hicks not guilty on count I and guilty on counts II and III. But the judgment
and sentence incorrectly lists the counts for which Hicks was sentenced as counts I and II. The
sentencing court also imposed various legal financial obligations, including a $100 contribution to
the Kitsap County Expert Witness Fund. Hicks appeals the judgment and sentence.
ANALYSIS
I. LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
Hicks argues that the sentencing court exceeded its authority by ordering Hicks to pay $100
to the expert witness fund when no expert witness testified at trial. The State concedes that the
sentencing court erred. We agree.
Sentencing errors may be challenged for the first time on appeal. State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d
739, 744, 193 P.3d 678 (2008). A trial court’s authority to impose costs and fees is statutory. See
State v. Hathaway, 161 Wn. App. 634, 652-53, 251 P.3d 253 (2011); RCW 10.01.160. Under
RCW 10.01.160(2), “[c]osts shall be limited to expenses specially incurred by the [S]tate in
prosecuting the defendant.”
Hicks is correct that the sentencing court erred by imposing costs for the expert witness
fund. Hicks’s trial did not include expert witness testimony. Therefore, a contribution to the
expert witness fund is an improper legal financial obligation because the State did not incur an
expert witness expense in prosecuting Hicks.
2
No. 49479-5-II
II. SCRIVENER’S ERROR
Hicks contends that the judgment and sentence contains a scrivener’s error because it
incorrectly lists the counts for which Hicks was sentenced as counts I and II. The State concedes
that this is a scrivener’s error. We accept the State’s concession.
Clerical mistakes in judgments and orders may be corrected by the court at any time on the
motion of any party. CrR 7.8(a). A scrivener’s error is a clerical mistake that, when amended,
would correctly convey the trial court’s intention, as expressed in the record at trial. State v. Davis,
160 Wn. App. 471, 478, 248 P.3d 121 (2011); see also Presidential Estates Apartment Assocs. v.
Barrett, 129 Wn.2d 320, 326, 917 P.2d 100 (1996). “[T]he amended judgment should either
correct the language to reflect the [trial] court’s intention or add the language that the [trial] court
inadvertently omitted.” State v. Snapp, 119 Wn. App. 614, 627, 82 P.3d 252 (2004). The remedy
for a scrivener’s error in a judgment and sentence is to remand to the trial court for correction.
State v. Makekau, 194 Wn. App. 407, 421, 378 P.3d 577 (2016); CrR 7.8(a).
Hicks is correct that the judgment and sentence incorrectly lists the counts for which she
was sentenced. The jury found Hicks guilty on counts II and III and acquitted Hicks on count I.
The judgment and sentence correctly reflects the jury’s verdicts but incorrectly lists the counts for
sentencing as counts I and II. This is a scrivener’s error because the judgment and sentence
misstates the sentencing court’s intention.
3
No. 49479-5-II
We accept the State’s concession and remand to the sentencing court to strike the expert
witness fund obligation and to correct the scrivener’s error in the judgment and sentence consistent
with this opinion.
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.
JOHANSON, J.
We concur:
WORSWICK, J.
MAXA, A.C.J.
4