Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                        )
                                            )       No. 66306-2-I
                      Respondent,           )
                                            )       DIVISION ONE
          v.                                )
                                            )
JOHN ARLEN STANLEY,                         )       UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                            )
                      Appellant.            )       FILED:  January 30, 2012

       PER CURIAM.  John Stanley appeals the sentence imposed following his 

convictions for first degree robbery, possession of cocaine, and attempted 

bribery of a witness.  He argues, and the State concedes, that the judgment and 

sentence fails to reflect agreed changes to the offender scores for the robbery 

and possession counts, and that an error in the offender score for the bribery 

charge requires resentencing on that count.  We accept the concession.  

       Stanley raises several additional claims in a pro se statement of 

additional grounds for review.  Stanley's first and fourth grounds fail to state a 

basis for relief because matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, 

conflicting testimony, and the persuasiveness of the evidence are the exclusive 

province of the jury.  State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990).  

Stanley's second ground involves matters outside the record on appeal.  And his 

third ground  --  i.e., that the failure of certain inmates to testify violated his right to 

confrontation  --  provides no basis for relief. Contrary to Stanley's assertions, the 

inmates were not his "accusers."  His accuser was a Department of Corrections  

No. 66306-2-I/2

Officer who testified that he saw Stanley pass a note asking an inmate to bribe a 

witness after his release.  Stanley fails to establish any basis for relief.

       The convictions are affirmed but the sentence is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.          

                                 For the court:

                                          - 2 -