Personal Restraint Petition Of Jeremy Arthur Roe

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the No. 51418-4-II
Personal Restraint Petition of
JEREMY ARTHUR MICHAEL ROE,
Petitioner.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BJORGEN, J. — Jeremy Roe seeks relief from personal restraint resulting from his 2016
plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance.1 He argues that the trial court erred
in imposing a 57-month term of confinement when the standard sentencing range for his crime
was 12+ to 24 months. The State concedes that the term of confinement is a scrivener’s error
resulting from the sentence being imposed concurrently with sentences in two other pleas of guilty
to second degree identity theft (Pierce County Superior Court Cause Nos. 15-1-03279-0 and 15-1-
03600-1) in which the court imposed concurrent 57-month sentences. It has provided a transcript
of the sentencing hearing in which the judge stated, “I am going to impose the high end of the
range.” Verbatim Report of Partial Proceedings (June 10, 2016) at 3. Thus, the State asks that
1 Because Roe’s judgment and sentence is facially invalid, it is not subject to RCW 10.73.090’s
time bar.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
December 18, 2018

No. 51418-4-II
2
Roe’s judgment and sentence be remanded to correct his term of confinement to be 24 months.
We accept the State’s concession and remand Roe’s judgment and sentence for correction as
described above.2
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
BJORGEN, J.
We concur:
WORSWICK, P.J.
JOHANSON, J.
2 Roe also argues that the combination of his 57-month term of confinement and his 12-month
term of community custody exceeds the 60-month statutory maximum penalty for his crime. But
once the term of confinement is corrected, the combination of the terms will no longer exceed the
statutory maximum penalty. Although he does not challenge his identity theft judgments and
sentences, which contain the same combination of terms of confinement and community custody,
the State represents that it will have those judgments and sentences corrected so they do not exceed
the statutory maximum penalty.