Personal Restraint Petition Of Ronald Brennan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PERSONAL RESTRAINT OF:
RONALD JOHN BRENNAN, JR,
Petitioner.
No. 84286-2-I
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — In 2018, Ronald Brennan was convicted of two counts of
distribution of a controlled substance to a minor with sexual motivation. For each count,
his offender score was calculated at 21 with a standard range sentencing of 124 to 144
months (inclusive of a 24-month sentencing enhancement). The trial court imposed an
upward exceptional sentence and ordered Brennan to serve 129 months on each count, to
run consecutively, for a total term of confinement of 258 months. This court affirmed his
convictions on direct review.1
In February 2022, Brennan filed in the superior court a motion to resentence,
claiming that his judgment is void on its face because two prior convictions for unlawful
possession of a controlled substance were considered at his sentencing and those
convictions were subsequently invalidated pursuant to State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481
1 See State v. Brennan, No. 79508-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2020) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/795082orderandopin.pdf, review denied, 196
Wn.2d 1045, 481 P.3d 552 (2021).

No. 84286-2-I/2
-2-
P.3d 521 (2021).2 The superior court transferred Brennan’s motion to this court to be
considered as a personal restraint petition pursuant to CrR 7.8(c)(2).
In order to obtain collateral relief by means of a personal restraint petition, Brennan
must demonstrate either an error of constitutional magnitude that gives rise to actual
prejudice or a nonconstitutional error that inherently results in a “complete miscarriage of
justice.” In re Pers. Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 813, 792 P.2d 506 (1990).
Brennan fails to meet this burden.
Brennan contends that his judgment and sentence is facially invalid, as removing
the two possession convictions invalidated by Blake from his criminal history reduces his
offender score from 21 to 19. But at a score of 19, Brennan’s standard range remains 124
to 144 months (with enhancements). See RCW 9.94A.510 (highest standard range
reached at offender score of 9 or more). Because the superior court had authority to
sentence Brennan within that range, the judgment and sentence is not facially invalid. See
In re Pers. Restraint of Coats, 173 Wn.2d 123, 136, 267 P.3d 324 (2011); In re Pers.
Restraint of Toledo-Sotelo, 176 Wn.2d 759, 768-70, 297 P.3d 51 (2013); Ord. Granting
Rev. & Reversing, In re Pers. Restraint of Richardson, No. 101043-5, at 2 (Wash. Nov. 14,
2022) (a judgment and sentence is not facially invalid when offender score is 9 or more
and the standard range remains the same after removing drug possession conviction from
offender score).
2 In Blake, the Supreme Court held that (former) RCW 69.50.4013(1), the statute
criminalizing simple drug possession, violates state and federal due process clauses and,
therefore, is unconstitutional. 197 Wn.2d at 195.

No. 84286-2-I/3
-3-
Nor has Brennan established actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice as a result
of being sentenced with an offender score of 21. This is so, as the trial court found when
sentencing Brennan, because it would have imposed the same exceptional sentence
regardless of the high offender score pursuant to RCW 9.94A.535(3)(f). Under that
provision, if an offense was committed with sexual motivation, as found by the jury here,
the trial court may impose a sentence outside the standard range or run counts
consecutively. Based upon the jury’s findings and consideration of “all of the ‘mitigating’
material” Brennan submitted at sentencing, the trial court found it appropriate to run the
counts consecutively. See RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) (“Consecutive sentences may only be
imposed under the exceptional sentence provisions of RCW 9.94A.535.”).
In short, Brennan has not shown that his judgment and sentence is facially invalid
or demonstrated that he suffered actual and substantial prejudice from the trial court
sentencing him with an offender score of 21. Accordingly, Brennan’s personal restraint
petition must be dismissed.
WE CONCUR: