Court of Appeals Division III
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

                                                                               FILED
                                                                           FEB 07, 2012
                                                                    In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                  WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                      No. 29518-4-III
                                                )
                      Appellant,                )
                                                )         Division Three
              v.                                )
                                                )
DOUGLAS B. BAKER,                               )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                                )
                      Respondent.               )
                                                )

       Brown, J. ? The State of Washington appeals the trial court's decision to allow 

electronic home monitoring (EHM) for Douglas B. Baker.  The State contends the trial 

court erred by impermissibly modifying Mr. Baker's sentence from work crew after he 

had failed to complete a drug court contract.  The State concedes the issue is moot, but 

asks us to consider the merits.  We decline and dismiss this appeal.    

                                            FACTS

       On August 19, 2010, Mr. Baker pleaded guilty to controlled substance

possession.  The court sentenced him to 9 months with credit for 77 days.  We lack a 

sentencing record, but according to the trial court's memorandum decision, Mr. Baker 

requested EHM at the time of sentencing and the court left the matter hanging:   

No. 29518-4-III  
State v. Baker  

       Here the Court authorized partial confinement including work crew, but 
       did not check the box as to Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM).  A review 
       of the hearing transcript shows the Defendant requested EHM at 
       sentencing.  The state objected on the grounds the county no longer 
       supervises EHM, and the private companies that offer EHM do not have a 
       contract with the jail, which the state asserted they must.  The defense 
       asserted the contract was not necessary and offered to brief the issue. 
       Ultimately the matter was not addressed by the Court, and the J&S was 
       signed without the matter being resolved.  

Clerk's Papers at 20.

       Apparently, the State's objection to EHM was partly based on the need to 

reimburse a private company for EHM service costs and the lack of a current contract 

for those services.  In the judgment and sentence, the trial court expressly authorized 

Mr. Baker to serve his remaining sentence in partial confinement.  It checked the box 

for work crew, but did not check the box for EHM.  On September 20, 2010, after failing 

drug court and starting work crew, Mr. Baker moved to modify his sentence to allow him 

to serve the rest of his sentence on EHM.  He argued EHM did not need to be through 

a government contract.  The State partly argued the court lacked authority to change 

the form of partial confinement after the sentence was imposed.  Ultimately the trial 

court reasoned that under the circumstances, the ability to assert the change had been 

preserved, and granted Mr. Baker's request for EHM.  The State appealed.  

                                          ANALYSIS

       The State contends the trial court exceeded its authority under the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW, by changing the terms of Mr. Baker's 

sentence after it had entered the judgment and sentence.  Felony criminal sentences in 

                                               2 

No. 29518-4-III  
State v. Baker  

the State of Washington are governed by the SRA.  RCW 9.94A.505(1).  Whether a 

trial court has exceeded its statutory authority under the SRA is an issue of law, which 

this court reviews independently.  State v. Hale, 94 Wn. App. 46, 54, 971 P.2d 88 

(1999).  

       Our record review shows the trial court was well aware of the sentencing limits 

contended by the State.  Because this appeal is unopposed, no legal debate is before 

us and the true nature of the issue has not been well developed.  The underlying 

dispute centers around whether the trial court correctly reasoned the EHM issue had 

been preserved.  While we find no fault with the trial court's reasoning, dispositive is 

whether this matter is moot.  The State acknowledges we can provide no effective 

relief. Snohomish County v. State, 69 Wn. App. 655, 660, 850 P.2d 546 (1993).  Mr. 

Baker has completed his sentence.  

       The State has not thoroughly briefed whether this appeal is moot.  It argues:  "If 

this sort of unsupported, nonemergency, non-emergent modification of sentences is 

allowed, there will be nothing to prevent other courts and defendants from simply 

asking for whatever sentencing modifications are desired." Appellant's Br. at 5.  The 

State suggests that deciding this matter would be appropriate to address the issue in 

order to clarify the sentencing court's authority and to provide future guidance.  Id. 

(citing State v. Blilie, 132 Wn.2d 484, 488 n.1, 939 P.2d 691 (1997)).  

       While criminal sentencing is a public matter, because our facts are unique, this 

situation is unlikely to reoccur; this obviates the need for decisional authority to guide

                                               3 

No. 29518-4-III  
State v. Baker  

future decision-makers.  Sorenson v. City of Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 

512 (1972). We have no evidence persuading us this is a matter of continuing and 

substantial public interest.  Id.  This is a one-sided appeal; no responsive briefing or 

advocacy is presented, another factor weighing against considering the merits.  Hart v. 

Dep't of Social & Health Servs., 111 Wn.2d 445, 448, 759 P.2d 1206 (1988).  Finally, 

the State's presented contention surrounds a well-settled sentencing-modification issue 

that is unlikely to escape review in the future.  City of Seattle v. State, 100 Wn.2d 232, 

250, 668 P.2d 1266 (1983).  All considered, we conclude this appeal is moot and 

decline further review.  

       Dismissed.

       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.

                                                           ________________________
                                                           Brown, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________                              __________________________
Sweeney, J.                                                Siddoway, J.

                                               4