State Of Washington v. Mark Steve Gonzales ( 2018 )

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF DIV I
WASHINGTON
2018 FEB' I 2 AM 8: 53
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 77074-8-I
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
V.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MARK GONZALES,
Appellant. FILED: February 12, 2018
PER CURIAM - Mark Gonzales appeals the sentence imposed following
his guilty pleas to third degree assault and felony harassment. He contends, and
the State concedes, that the combined terms of confinement and community
custody on the assault exceed the statutory maximum sentence. We accept the
State's concession but leave the parties' dispute regarding the proper procedure
on remand for the trial court.
Gonzales' Statement of Additional Grounds (SAG) consists largely of a
series of legal propositions, most of which fail to "inform the court of the nature
and occurrence of alleged errors." RAP 10.10(c). The few that arguably comply
with the rule fail for the following reasons.
Gonzales challenges his offender score, arguing for the first time on
appeal that his current offenses are the same criminal conduct. We will not
review a same criminal conduct claim raised for the first time on appeal. State v.
Brown, 159 Wash. App. 1, 16-17, 248 P.3d 518 (2010). Furthermore, it is unclear
No. 77074-8-1 /2
whether his current offenses were included in his offender scores and, in any
event, he fails to demonstrate that a one point reduction in his scores would bring
them below "9+". CP 190.1
Gonzales also claims that California convictions included in his offender
score "were Double Jeopardy." SAG at 5. This claim is not only too conclusory
to warrant review, but it overlooks Gonzales' stipulation below that the California
convictions "are all appropriately included in my offender score." CP 168.
Finally, Gonzales contends he should have received an "exceptional
minimum indeterminate sentence." SAG at exhibit 4. Gonzales waived his right
to raise this claim on appeal. His plea agreement states:
11. I agree and stipulate that justice is best served by the imposition of an
108 month exceptional sentence outside the standard range, as permitted by
RCW 9.94A.535(2)(a), and believe an exceptional sentence of 108 months to
be consistent with and in furtherance of the interests of justice and the
purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act.
12. I waive the right to appeal any sentence outside of my standard ranges,
so long as the sentence imposed is within the statutory maximum.
17. I knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive my right to appeal the
imposition of an exceptional sentence.
CP 169-70.
Remanded for amendment of the judgment and sentence.
For the Court: I V 1,2",.
1 Gonzales' criminal history includes over 20 prior convictions.
2