* State Of Washington, Respondent V. Shane I. Vandervort, Appellant

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 51973-9-II
Respondent,
v.
ORDER AMENDING PUBLISHED
SHANE I. VANDERVORT, OPINION
Appellant.
The court on its own motion amends the November 26, 2019 published opinion in part as
follows.
On page 3, the last paragraph before the signatures, we remove
Because the time to appeal the imposition of his LFOs had passed one year
after the court imposed Vandervort’s original DOSA sentence, we dismiss the
appeal as untimely.
We replace it with
Because the time to appeal the imposition of his LFOs has passed 30 days
after the court imposed Vandervort’s original DOAS sentence, we dismiss the
appeal as untimely.
We do not amend any other portion of the opinion or the result. Accordingly, it is
SO ORDERED.
Melnick, J.
We concur:
Worswick, J.
Lee, A.C.J.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
November 24, 2020
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 51973-9-II
Respondent,
v.
SHANE I. VANDERVORT, PUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
MELNICK, J. — In May 2017, the superior court sentenced Shane Vandervort to a residential
drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA). It imposed legal financial obligations (LFOs). In
December 2017, the court issued an order revoking his DOSA sentence but did not amend the
judgment and sentence. Vandervort appeals only the imposition of the LFOs from his original
sentence. We dismiss the appeal as untimely.
FACTS
Vandervort pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of
criminal trespass in the first degree. On May 26, 2017, the trial court sentenced Vandervort to a
24-month DOSA sentence. As part of this sentence, the court imposed LFOs. Vandervort did not
appeal the sentence.
On December 1, 2017, the trial court revoked Vandervort’s DOSA sentence because he
failed to report to the Department of Corrections. The trial court ordered him to serve 18 months.
It did not enter a new or amended judgement and sentence, only an order.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
November 26, 2019
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

51973-9-II
3
Vandervort filed a late notice of appeal on May 18, 2018. The notice stated that Vandervort
sought review of the order revoking his DOSA sentence. We subsequently granted Vandervort’s
motion for extension of time because his attorney had not discussed his appeal rights with him.
Vandervort’s brief assigns error to the trial court’s imposition of LFOs but does not challenge the
revocation of his DOSA sentence.
ANALYSIS
The State argues that the challenge to the LFOs is untimely because Vandervort filed a
notice of appeal well beyond 30 days after the original DOSA sentence. Vandervort argues that
the appeal is timely because we granted an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. We agree
with the State.1
We do not consider untimely appeals. RAP 5.2(a). A notice of appeal must be filed within
30 days after the entry of the trial court’s decision that the party filing the notice wants reviewed.
RAP 5.2(a)(1). Judgments are entered immediately after they are signed by the judge, and the time
available to file an appeal begins to run from that date. RAP 5.2(c); CR 58(a); In re Pers. Restraint
of Wolf, 196 Wn. App. 496, 509-10, 384 P.3d 591 (2016). However, a criminal appeal may not be
dismissed as untimely unless the State shows that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently abandoned his appeal. State v. Kells, 134 Wn.2d 309, 314, 949 P.2d 818 (1998).
In Wolf, the defendant filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) to challenge the 2012
revocation of his special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) sentence. 196 Wn. App. at
499. In the PRP, he challenged LFOs imposed in his original 2008 SSOSA disposition. Wolf, 196
Wn. App. at 500. We concluded that his challenge was time barred because the SSOSA revocation
did not involve the LFOs imposed seven years previously. Wolf, 196 Wn. App. at 500. We
1 Because we dismiss the appeal as untimely, we do not address the validity of the LFOs.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

51973-9-II
4
determined that because the SSOSA revocation “did not involve the LFOs imposed in 2008,” and
the defendant did not appeal the original sentence, the LFOs were final on the date the original
sentence was entered in 2008. Wolf, 196 Wn. App. at 510.
We granted Vandervort’s extension motion and accepted his notice of appeal. However,
the motion to appeal designated the DOSA revocation as the decision to be reviewed. The DOSA
revocation, however, did not address the LFOs or the original judgement and sentence. As in Wolf,
the trial court imposed LFOs as part of Vandervort’s original sentence, which he did not appeal.
Similar to the SSOSA revocation in Wolf, a DOSA revocation is not a resentencing. Rather, it is
one of the “sanctions” the superior court can impose when an offender violates a condition of the
DOSA sentence. RCW 9.94A.660(7)(a), (b), (c).
Because the time to appeal the imposition of his LFOs had passed one year after the court
imposed Vandervort’s original DOSA sentence, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.
Melnick, J.
We concur:
Worswick, J.
Lee, A.C.J.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.