Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Noy

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

May 7, 2018

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
STEVEN VAN NOY, Appellant.

          Spearman, J.

         The Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA), RCW 9.94A.660, authorizes a sentencing court to impose an alternative sentence when certain statutory conditions are met. As relevant here, a person is eligible for a DOSA sentence if "[t]he offender has not received a drug offender sentencing alternative more than once in the prior ten years before the current offense." RCW 9.94A.660(1)(g). We are asked to decide whether "before the current offense" means "before commission of the current offense" or "before sentencing on the current offense." The plain language of the statute indicates that the former reading is correct.

         Steven Van Noy was taken into custody after committing a series of crimes in Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties. He was sentenced separately in each county. In Pierce and King Counties, Van Noy received DOSA sentences. When he was sentenced in Snohomish County, the court ruled that it did not have discretion to consider a DOSA because of Van Noy's Pierce and King County sentences. But because the Pierce and King County sentences were imposed after Van Noy committed the Snohomish County offenses, they did not render Van Noy ineligible for a DOSA sentence. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

         FACTS

         Van Noy became addicted to opioids and methamphetamine in 2014. In 2015, he committed several criminal offenses in Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties.[1] In July 2015, Van Noy pleaded guilty to residential burglary, second degree identity theft, and unlawful possession of a firearm in Snohomish County. He sought a DOSA and the court ordered a risk assessment and chemical dependency evaluation. Van Noy did not participate in the assessments and he failed to appear for sentencing. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Van Noy was taken into custody in Pierce County at the end of 2015.

         In March 2016, Van Noy was sentenced in Pierce County on three cases involving forgery, identity theft, burglary, and possession with intent to deliver. He received a prison-based DOSA sentence for these convictions. In June 2016, Van Noy pleaded guilty to one count of second degree burglary in King County. He was sentenced to a prison-based DOSA to run concurrently with the Pierce County sentence. The judgment and sentence includes the following handwritten finding:

The court finds that A is eligible for DOSA, because this DOSA was imposed after Pierce Co. causes (above), but before treatment has commenced. The court finds that this is not a separate DOSA for purposes of statutory provision against no more than 2 DOSA's per 10-yr. period.[2]

         Clerk's Papers (CP) at 50.

         Van Noy appeared for sentencing on his Snohomish County offenses in October 2016. He requested a prison-based DOSA to run concurrently with the Pierce and King County sentences. He argued that all of his offenses occurred within a short period of time and were caused by his recent addiction to heroin and methamphetamine.

         The sentencing court ruled that Van Noy was statutorily ineligible for a DOSA sentence. The court noted that, if the parties had agreed to sentence Van Noy's Pierce, King, and Snohomish County offenses in the same court, he could have received a DOSA for all of them. But the court ruled that, because Van Noy had received DOSA sentences in Pierce County and King County in the previous ten years, it did not have discretion to consider a DOSA. The court imposed a non-DOSA sentence running concurrently with Van Noy's Pierce and King County sentences.

         DISCUSSION

         Van Noy appeals his sentence, contending the trial court erred in ruling that it did not have discretion to consider a DOSA. He asserts that the ruling rests on an erroneous interpretation of the DOSA statute.

         Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815, 820, 239 P.3d 354 (2010) (citing In re Pet, of Williams, 147 Wn.2d 476, 486, 55 P.3d 597 (2002)). Our primary objective in interpreting a statute is to discern the intent of the legislature, Id. (citing State v. Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600, 115 P.3d 281 (2005)). We begin with the statute's plain meaning, as evident from the text of the statute, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. Id. (citing Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). We give words their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has indicated a contrary intent. Id. (citing Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power Co., 136 Wn.2d 911, 920-21, 969 P.2d 75 (1998)).

         The DOSA statute, RCW 9.94A.660, is part of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA). It authorizes a trial court to impose an alternative sentence including meaningful substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation incentives when this is in the best interest of the offender and the community. State v. Grayson,154 Wn.2d 333, 343, 111 P.3d 1183 (2005). An offender who receives a DOSA sentence serves about one-half of a standard range sentence in prison and receives substance abuse treatment while incarcerated. Id. at 337-38 (citing RCW 9.94A.660). For the balance of the sentence, the offender receives ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.