State v. Parent

Full title: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. KERRY LOUIS PARENT, Appellant

Court: The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Oct 17, 2011

164 Wn. App. 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)

267 P.3d 358

164 Wn. App. 210

Opinion

No. 65375–0–I.

2011-10-17

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Kerry Louis PARENT, Appellant.

Jennifer L. Dobson, Dana M. Nelson, Nielsen, Broman & Koch PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Deborah A. Dwyer, Kristin A. Relyea, King Co. Pros. Attorney's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

GROSSE

Jennifer L. Dobson, Dana M. Nelson, Nielsen, Broman & Koch PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Deborah A. Dwyer, Kristin A. Relyea, King Co. Pros. Attorney's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

GROSSE, J.

¶ 1 Where a statute is susceptible to two different interpretations, it is ambiguous and the rule of lenity requires that the statute be interpreted in favor of the defendant. We reverse the trial court.

FACTS

¶ 2 On November 19, 2009, Kerry Parent pleaded guilty to two counts of fourth degree assault, both misdemeanors. He was sentenced to two consecutive 12–month jail terms. The court imposed 8 months of confinement and suspended the balance of the sentence for a period of 24 months on each count, to run consecutively to each other, for a total period of 48 months probation.

¶ 3 Parent moved to reconsider the judgment and sentence, arguing that the trial court had no authority to impose probation for a length of time in excess of the maximum term set forth in RCW 9.95.210. The court denied the motion and Parent appeals.

ANALYSIS

¶ 4 Issues of statutory construction are reviewed de novo. If the plain words of a statute are unambiguous, we need not inquire further. If, however, the statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous. If there is no legislative intent to the contrary, the rule of lenity necessitates an interpretation that favors the defendant.

WE CONCUR: SPEARMAN and COX, JJ.

1. State v. Lilyblad, 163 Wash.2d 1, 6, 177 P.3d 686 (2008).

2. State v. Gonzalez, 168 Wash.2d 256, 263, 226 P.3d 131 (2010).

3. State v. Jacobs, 154 Wash.2d 596, 600–01, 115 P.3d 281 (2005).

4. Jacobs, 154 Wash.2d at 600–01, 115 P.3d 281.

5. State v. Gibson, 16 Wash.App. 119, 127–28, 553 P.2d 131 (1976).

6. State v. Butterfield, 12 Wash.App. 745, 747, 529 P.2d 901 (1974).

7. See RCW 9.94A.190(1) (“A sentence that includes a term or terms of confinement....”).

8. Staats v. Brown, 139 Wash.2d 757, 769, 991 P.2d 615 (2000) (quoting State v. Gore, 101 Wash.2d 481, 485–86, 681 P.2d 227 (1984)).