State Of Washington, Respondent V. Kokee Vuda Jones, Appellant

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

FILED
4/22/2019
Court of Appeals
Division |
State of Washington

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 78075-1-I
)
Respondent, )
) DIVISION ONE
Vv. )
)
KOKEE VUDA JONES, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. ) FILED: April 22, 2019
)

MANN, A.C.J. — Kokee Jones was sentenced to 161 months confinement for his
robbery, burglary, and assault convictions. In 2017, the Supreme Court granted Jones’s
personal restraint petition (PRP) due to an error in the calculation of his offender score
on the assault conviction. On remand, Jones filed a CrR 7.8 motion asking the trial
court to reconsider his sentence on all three convictions. The trial court declined
Jones’s motion and resentenced him on the assault conviction alone. Jones appeals.
We vacate the order denying Jones’s motion, convert the matter into a PRP, and
dismiss that PRP as untimely.

l.
In 2009, a jury convicted Jones of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first

degree, and assault in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Jones to 161

No. 78075-1-I/2

months confinement, which we affirmed.’ In 2017, the Supreme Court granted Jones’s
PRP “only as to the calculation of the offender score for the second degree assault

conviction.” In re Pers. Restraint of Jones, No. 93565-3 (Wash. Aug. 2, 2017).

On remand, Jones filed a motion to vacate judgment under CrR 7.8(c)(2). He
argued that his motion was not time barred under RCW 10.70.090(1) because In re the

Personal Restraint of Light-Roth, 200 Wn. App. 149, 401 P.3d 459 (2017), held that

State v. O'Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680, 697, 358 P.3d 359 (2015) was a significant change in

the law. See RCW 10.73.100(6). The trial court denied Jones’s motion, corrected the
calculation of Jones’s offender score on his assault conviction, and resentenced Jones.
IL.
Jones’s only argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in not following the
mandatory procedures for reviewing his CrR 7.8 motion. This argument is immaterial
because the Supreme Court has since held that O’Dell was not a significant change in

the law. In re Pers. Restraint of Light-Roth, 191 Wn.2d 328, 330, 422 P.3d 444 (2018).

Therefore, Jones’s untimely motion should have been transferred to this court as a
PRP. CrR 7.8(c)(2). Accordingly, we vacate the order denying Jones’s motion, convert
the matter to a PRP, and dismiss the PRP as untimely.

The petition is dismissed.

Wen ACT
WE CONCUR:
AMIN (-. Arg Adh AH, F :

N_4 /

1 State v. Jones, noted at 162 Wn. App. 1017 (2011).
-2-