IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 75501-3-1
Respondent, c=> Cr) C)
5)1.
DIVISION ONE —4=4
rrt
V.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION -1-1
TERRY ALLEN DURNIL, nk - 0 •rt
cf, rri ;
= =C)
Appellant. FILED: November 6, 2017 9
I 2
-9 ,
TRICKEY, A.C.J. — Terry Durnil contends that his exceptional sentence of
60 months of confinement and 12 months of community custody exceeds the
statutory maximum sentence and requires remand for amendment. The
sentencing court properly noted on the judgment and sentence that the combined
term of confinement and community custody should not exceed the statutory
maximum. We affirm.
FACTS
Durnil pleaded guilty to 14 counts of identity theft in the second degree with
an offender score of 17. The trial court found that due to Durnil's high offender
score, any standard range sentence would be too lenient and result in some of the
offenses going unpunished. As a result, the trial court imposed an exceptional
sentence of 60 months on all counts to run concurrently. The court verbally
sentenced Durnil to community custody for the period of his earned early release.
The written judgment and sentence ordered Durnil to serve 60 months of
incarceration and 12 months of community custody as required under RCW
9.94A.411. The community custody provision of the judgment and sentence
included a standard, preprinted notation specifying, "applicable mandatory term
No. 75501-3-1 / 2
reduced so that the total amount of incarceration and community custody does not
exceed the maximum term of sentence."'
Durnil appeals.
ANALYSIS
Durnil contends that the trial court did not adequately delineate the structure
of his combined incarceration and community custody to avoid a sentence in
excess of the statutory maximum. Specifically, he claims that the standard
notation in the judgment and sentence to reduce the applicable mandatory term
does not a comply with RCW 9.94A.701(9). We disagree.
For standard range sentences, the trial court is obligated to reduce the
required term of community custody when the combined time of confinement and
community custody exceed the statutory maximum. RCW 9.94A.701(9). The trial
court, not the Department of Corrections (DOC), must reduce the term of
community custody. State v. Boyd, 174 Wn.2d 470, 473, 275 P.3d 321 (2012);
State v. Bruch, 182 Wn.2d 854, 864, 346 P.3d 724 (2015).
But, by its plain language, RCW 9.94A.701(9) does not apply to exceptional
sentences. In re Pers. Restraint of McWilliams, 182 Wn.2d 213, 217, 340 P.3d
223 (2014). For exceptional sentences, "a notation on the judgment and sentence
explicitly stating that the combination of confinement and community custody
would not exceed the statutory maximum" is the appropriate remedy. McWilliams,
182 Wn.2d at 218. This notation informs the DOC that it must modify the length of
Clerk's Papers at 183.
2
No. 75501-3-1/3
community custody to conform to the statutory maximum sentence based on the
term of confinement actually served. McWilliams, 182 Wn.2d at 218.
Here, RCW 9.94A.701(9) does not apply because Durnil received an
exceptional sentence. Durnil's judgment and sentence includes the requisite
notation. We conclude that the trial court did not err.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
3