Considered September 18, 2014.
Appeal from Grant County Superior Court. No. 11-1-00445-0. Honorable John D Knodell.
Ignacio Cobos, pro se.
D. Angus Lee, Prosecuting Attorney, and Carole L. Highland, Deputy, for respondent.
AUTHOR: Justice Steven C. González. WE CONCUR: Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Susan Owens, Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, Justice Debra L. Stephens, Justice Charles K. Wiggins, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Justice Mary I. Yu.
[182 Wn.2d 13] ¶ 1 Ignacio Cobos represented himself at his sentencing hearing and objected to the State's calculation of his offender score. The trial judge sentenced Cobos with the offender score asserted by the State without holding an evidentiary hearing because Cobos's former counsel had agreed to the score prior to being discharged. The Court of Appeals found the sentencing court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing, remanded for resentencing, and concluded that both sides could introduce supplemental evidence of the proper score on remand. State v. Cobos, 178 Wn.App. 692, 700-01, 315 P.3d 600 (2013) (citing Laws of 2008, ch. 231, § 4 (codified at RCW 9.94A.530(2))). We granted review. State v. Cobos, 180 Wn.2d 1008, [182 Wn.2d 14] 325 P.3d 913 (2014). Cobos argues the State is barred from offering new evidence on remand under the common law " no second chance" rule. Our decision is controlled by State v. Jones,
182 Wn.2d 1, 338 P.3d 278 (2014), where we held that RCW 9.94A.530(2) supersedes our common law " no second chance" rule. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals.
Facts and Procedural History
¶ 2 Cobos was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, and voyeurism. At his sentencing hearing, Cobos moved to represent himself. Before the court ruled on his motion, defense counsel and the State agreed Cobos had an offender score of 9. The court granted Cobos's motion to represent himself, and sentencing was continued without revisiting the offender score calculation.  At the second sentencing hearing a week later, Cobos objected to the State's summary of his criminal history.
¶ 3 The State offered to obtain certified copies of the judgments and sentences and suggested a two-week continuance. Cobos objected to a continuance and maintained his objection to the calculation of his offender score. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Feb. 14, 2012) at 24 (" I don't agree to that calculation of the offender score. ... And if the Court wants to continue the sentencing, that's up to the Court. ... I just want to--to note an objection." ). The court proceeded with sentencing based on the State's asserted offender score of 9 and sentenced Cobos to 120 months' confinement.
¶ 4 Cobos appealed, and the Court of Appeals held the sentencing court erred when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and instead relied on material facts to which Cobos objected. Cobos, 178 Wn.App. at 700. The Court of Appeals [182 Wn.2d 15] held the parties could introduce new evidence regarding criminal history pursuant to the 2008 statutory amendment to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW. Id. at 700-01. Cobos filed a pro se petition ...