-
iiith N@VEMBER ida 2915 in the Uitice of the £lerlc of Conrt WA Sta€e Court of Ap§)eals, Hivision lii lN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 34846-6-111 Respondent, § y. § UNPUBLISHED OPINION DUSTIN HAWK CHAN£BERS, § Appellant. § LAWRENCE~BERREY, J. _ Dustin H. Charnbers appeais his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. We affirm. ` BACKGROUND The State set forth the following allegations in the amended inforlnation: On or between February 9, 2016 and March 15, 2016 in the County of Oi195 P.3d 98
(2008). l An alternative means crime is one in which the proscribed criminal conduct can be proved in various ways Sta)fe v. Peterson,
168 Wn.2d 763, 769, 230 _P.3d 588 (20l0). “‘ [D]efinition statutes do not create additional alternative means of committing an offense.ljj
Id. at 770(quoting Sta.te v. Linehan, l47 Wn.Zd 638, 646,
56 P.3d 542(2002)). ln Peterson, our Suprerne Court held that failure to register is not an alternative means crime ]d. at 771. Peterson noted, “[l]t is not necessary to draw a distinction between alternatives and definitions of alternatives where the crime at issue is not an alternative means crime at all.” n ]a’. Accordingly, the various definitions by which a “i<;idnapping offense” or a “sex offense” become a predicate offense are not essential elements of the crime of failure to register as a sex offender Because this is,the only aspect that l\/lr. Chambers asserts was not proved, we need not discuss whether other elements were sufiiciently proved No. 34846~6-lll Stute v. Cham/;)ers APPELLATE COSTS i\/lr. Chambers requests that should he not substantially prevail on appeal, no appellate costs be awarded under RAP 14.2. The State takes no position The State has g substantially prevailed on appeal The trial court properly made a determination of indigency and Mr. Chambers’s likely future inability to pay. RAP l4.2 governs the award of appellate costs. The rule generally requires an award of appellate costs to the party that substantially prevails RAP 14.2. The rule permits an appellate court, in its decision, to decline an award of appellate costs, or to direct a commissioner or clerk to decide the issue. Id, A commissioner or clerk is precluded from awarding appellate costs if he or she finds that the defendant lacks the current or likely future ability to pay such costs. Icz’. lf a trial court earlier found that the defendant was indigent for purposes of appeal, that finding continues unless the commissioner or clerl
Id. llere, in the event the State requests appellate costs, we defer the issue to our commissioner Because the trial court found that Mr. Chambers was indigent for purposes of appeal, that finding continues unless the commissioner finds by a N@. santee-in Srate v, Chnmbers preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Chambers’s financial circumstances have significantly improved. Aft`irmed. 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. g m \_._:¢"“"?.F-r-<' § ~§:§ LMQ\; § Lawrenee~Berrey, l. l l at Wl""£ CONCUR: -~`~""-' nev :Wm_v,,-‘ /', /[,/€` { ~ W..,r aid ae'i~»€t ri " l'('"'M thl"“ Fearing, C.J. `b Pennell, .l. \-t,,..l>'
Document Info
Docket Number: 34846-6
Filed Date: 11/14/2017
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/14/2017