No. 20262-3-III.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three. Panel Two.
Filed: September 5, 2002. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from Superior Court of Douglas County, No. 98-1-00046-9, Hon. John J. Hotchkiss, June 4, 2001, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), William D. Edelblute, Attorney At Law, 200 N Mullan Rd Ste 119, Spokane, WA 99206.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Eric C. Biggar, Douglas County Prosecutor’s Office, P.O. Box 360, Waterville, WA 98858.
JOHN A. SCHULTHEIS, J.
Britt A. Eidsvoog appeals the court’s order on noncompliance with the terms of her community supervision. Because the court improperly added to her standard range sentence the 330 days of confinement that had been previously suspended in a prior conviction, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
Facts
The parties do not dispute the facts and circumstances leading to this appeal. On April 21, 1998, Ms. Eidsvoog pleaded guilty in the Douglas County Superior Court to unlawful possession of methamphetamine. As part of her sentence she was ordered to serve 24 months of community supervision during which she was not to associate with any persons with criminal convictions or those known to use or possess controlled substances. Ms. Eidsvoog was caught several times violating different conditions of her community supervision.
On March 12, 2001, after a hearing on community supervision violations, the court imposed a sentence of 330 days confinement but suspended the sentence for one year on the condition she did not violate any other provision of her community supervision order. Just over one month later Ms. Eidsvoog was again brought before the court on another series of community supervision violations. A hearing was scheduled to discuss the State’s recommendation that the court impose the suspended 330 days from the March 12, 2001 order in addition to the standard sentence for the current violations. At the conclusion of the hearing the court ordered a total of 450 days of confinement: the suspended 330 days plus an additional 120 days on the new violations. Ms. Eidsvoog filed a timely notice of appeal.
Analysis
The parties agree the trial court erred when it imposed the previously suspended 330 days of confinement to Ms. Eidsvoog’s most recent sentence for violating the terms of her community supervision order on a prior drug conviction. Both parties correctly rely on State v. Shove, 113 Wn.2d 83, 776 P.2d 132 (1989) and State v. DeBello, 92 Wn. App. 723, 964 P.2d 1192 (1998) in concluding the trial court did not have the statutory authority to suspend the 330 days of confinement ordered on March 12, 2001. As a result, the court also lacked the authority to reinstate that period of confinement as part of a later community supervision violation order.
The statutory authority given a trial court regarding violations of the conditions of a judgment and sentence resulting from a felony conviction is found in former RCW 9.94A.200 (1998).[1] This statute allows the trial court to impose additional confinement as a penalty or sanction. DeBello, 92 Wn. App. at 727. However, the statute `does not expressly authorize the suspension of confinement terms.’ Id. at 728. Likewise, a court does not have inherent authority to suspend a sanction. Id. It follows then, the trial court did not have the authority to suspend the 330 days of confinement in the March 12, 2001 order. However, neither party appealed that ruling, which makes it the law of the case. Nevertheless, for purposes of this appeal, both parties agree that pursuant to former RCW 9.94A.200 (1998), there was no basis on which the court could add the previously suspended 330 days to the 120 days of confinement ordered on June 4, 2001 for the current violations. That being the case, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
The panel has determined that 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.
WE CONCUR: BROWN, C.J. KATO, J.