State Of Washington, Resp. vs. P. M., Dob: 10/25/95, App.

State: Washington

Docket No: 67307-6

Case Date: 03/26/2012

DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).

Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number:	67307-6
Title of Case:	State Of Washington, Resp. vs. P. M., Dob: 10/25/95, App.
File Date:	03/26/2012

SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------

Appeal from King County Superior Court
Docket No:	11-8-00050-0
Judgment or order under review
Date filed:	05/12/2011
Judge signing:	Honorable Christopher a Washington

JUDGES
------

COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------

Counsel for Appellant(s)
	Washington Appellate Project
	Attorney at Law
	1511 Third Avenue
	Suite 701
	Seattle, WA, 98101

	Gregory Charles Link
	Washington Appellate Project
	1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
	Seattle, WA, 98101-3635

	Susan F Wilk
	Washington Appellate Project
	1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
	Seattle, WA, 98101-3635
Counsel for Respondent(s)
	Prosecuting Atty King County
	King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor
	W554 King County Courthouse
	516 Third Avenue
	Seattle, WA, 98104

	Dennis John Mccurdy
	King County Prosecutor's Office
	516 3rd Ave Ste W554
	Seattle, WA, 98104-2362

			

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                        )
                                            )       No. 67307-6-I
                      Respondent,           )
                                            )       DIVISION ONE
          v.                                )
                                            )
P.M.,                                       )       UNPUBLISHED OPINION
B.D. 10/25/95,                              )
                                            )
                      Appellant.            )       FILED:  March 26, 2012

       PER CURIAM.  P.M. appeals his conviction in juvenile court for first 

degree robbery, arguing that the State failed to prove surplus allegations in the 

information.  But surplus language in an information may be disregarded and 

need not be proved "unless it is repeated in the jury instructions." State v. Tvedt, 

153 Wn.2d 705, 718-19, 107 P.3d 728 (2005) (citing State v. Miller, 71 Wn.2d 

143, 146, 426 P.2d 986 (1967)). P.M.'s argument that the rule should be 

different for bench trials is contrary to established and binding law.  Tvedt, 153 

Wn.2d at 719 (where case was tried to bench on stipulated facts and there were 

no jury instructions repeating surplusage in information, court held "this is not a 

case where the State had to prove the surplus facts included in the information"); 

State v. Munson, 120 Wn. App. 103, 108, 83 P.3d 1057 (2004) (in a bench trial, 

unnecessary allegations in information do not become elements that the State is 

required to prove); State v. McGary, 37 Wn. App. 856, 683 P.2d 1125 (1984).

       Affirmed.  

                                 For the court: 

- 2 -