Order File Date January 14, 2014
PANEL: Judges Brown, Kulik, Siddoway.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
THE COURT has considered respondent's motion to clarify the court's opinion of August 22, 2013.
IT IS ORDERED, the motion to clarify the opinion is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the opinion is amended as follows:
(1) The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 1 and the third paragraph on page 10 are amended to read:
We reverse the firearm sentence enhancement and remand to the trial court to strike the enhancement from Mr. Soto's judgment and sentence.
(2) The last paragraph that begins on page 11 and continues to page 12 is amended to read:
The record of Mr. Soto's sentencing reveals that nothing was said about his ability or likely future ability to pay his LFOs. Here, as in Bertrand, the findings are clearly erroneous by virtue of the lack of support in the record. The appropriate remedy is to reverse the finding of ability to pay and remand to the trial court with directions to strike the findings from the judgment and sentence.
(3) The last sentence on page 12 is amended to read:
We reverse the firearm sentence enhancement and finding of ability to pay and remand to the trial court to strike both from the judgment and sentence.
KEVIN M. KORSMO, Chief Judge
This case presents a statutory construction issue of first impression: whether a sentencing court has the statutory authority to impose a firearm sentence enhancement on a defendant's sentence for conviction of an unranked felony. We conclude that RCW 9.94A.533, which provides for firearm and other sentence enhancements, applies only to ranked offenses.
We therefore reverse the firearm sentence enhancement and remand to the trial court for resentencing. With respect to the second issue raised by Mr. Soto, we direct the court to exclude from the judgment and sentence any finding of Mr. Soto's present or future ability to pay legal financial ...