* State of Washington v. Karli A. Haas

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purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion.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For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see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 THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
KARLI A. HAAS,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 39752-1-III
PUBLISHED OPINION
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — RCW 9.94A.535(3)(e) authorizes a trial court to
impose an exceptional sentence for a major violation of the Uniform Controlled
Substances Act (VUCSA), chapter 69.50 RCW. By definition, a major VUCSA can
occur when “[t]he current offense involved at least three separate transactions in which
controlled substances were sold, transferred, or possessed with intent to do so.”
RCW 9.94A.535(3)(e)(i).
Here, the State brought eight charges against Karli Haas for selling controlled
substances. The charges related to three separate transactions. A jury found Ms. Haas
FILED
DECEMBER 26, 2024
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 39752-1-III
State v. Haas
2
guilty of all eight charges. The trial court determined that Ms. Haas’s standard range
sentence was 12+ to 20 months for each charge, ran all eight sentences concurrently, and
imposed an exceptional sentence of 40 months.
Ms. Haas argues that RCW 9.94A.535(3)(e)(i), by its plain language, applies only
when multiple transactions are charged in the aggregate in a single offense. We agree
with Ms. Haas, respectfully disagree with an unpublished decision of our sister division,
and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
On three occasions over the span of three months, Karli Haas sold
methamphetamine and pills that were stamped to look like Oxycodone but actually
contained fentanyl. In the first sale, she sold an ounce and a half of methamphetamine
and a couple of fentanyl pills for $400. In the second sale, she sold an ounce of
methamphetamine and three fentanyl pills for $310. In the third sale, she sold 50
fentanyl pills for $325.
The State filed five separate charges for each substance sold during each
transaction, and three additional charges for each delivery of the counterfeit Oxycodone
pills. The State also charged a statutory sentence enhancement, alleging that each of the
eight offenses were major violations of the controlled substances act within the meaning
of RCW 9.94A.535(3)(e)(i).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 39752-1-III
State v. Haas
3
In the court’s instructions, the jury was directed to determine if each of the eight
charges were major trafficking violations under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act,
and was informed that the presence of the following factor may identify the offense as a
major trafficking offense: “Whether the offense involved at least three separate
transactions in which controlled substances were sold, transferred, or possessed with
intent to do so.” Clerk’s Papers at 81. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all eight
charges and special verdicts finding that all charges were major trafficking violations.
At sentencing, the trial court determined the delivery convictions that occurred on
the same day constituted the same criminal conduct. Because there were three separate
deliveries, the court’s determination resulted in an offender score of “2” and a standard
range sentence of 12+ to 20 months for each conviction. The trial court imposed a
40-month exceptional sentence on each conviction, ran each of the sentences concurrent
to one another, and supported its enhanced sentence with written findings and
conclusions. In addition, the trial court imposed legal financial obligations, including a
$500 victim penalty assessment (VPA) and a $100 DNA collection fee.
Ms. Haas appealed to this court.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 39752-1-III
State v. Haas
4
ANALYSIS
A. THE VUCSA MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS AGGRAVATOR
Ms. Haas argues the trial court erred by imposing the VUCSA multiple transaction
aggravator. Preliminarily, the State urges us not to reach the merits of Ms. Haas’s
argument because she failed to challenge the aggravator below. We disagree. “In the
context of sentencing, established case law holds that illegal or erroneous sentences may
be challenged for the first time on appeal.” State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477, 973 P.2d
452 (1999).
To impose a sentence above the standard range, a court must find substantial and
compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence based on specifically enumerated
aggravating circumstances that must be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
RCW 9.94A.535(3), .537(3). One of the enumerated circumstances is the VUCSA
multiple transactions aggravator, which applies if “[t]he current offense involved at least
three separate transactions in which controlled substances were sold, transferred, or
possessed with intent to do so.” RCW 9.94A.535(3)(e)(i).
Ms. Haas argues the aggravator applies, according to its plain language, only when
multiple transactions are charged in the aggregate in a single offense. So, according to
Ms. Haas, for the “current offense” to “involve” at least three separate transactions, a
single charge must include at least three separate transactions.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 39752-1-III
State v. Haas
5
The State responds by citing the unpublished decision of State v. Malone,
No. 43823-2-II, slip op. at 19 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2014) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2043823-2-II%20Unpublished%
20Opinion.pdf,1 which concluded that “current offense” includes all conduct related to
the crime with which the defendant is charged. So, according to the State, for the
“current offense” to “involve” at least three separate transactions, the entire case must
involve at least three separate transactions.
At issue here are the meanings of the “current offense” and “involved.” The
meaning of statutory language is a matter of statutory interpretation, which we review de
novo. State v. Siers, 174 Wn.2d 269, 274, 274 P.3d 358 (2012).
We apply the following well-established standards for interpreting statutory
language:
Our fundamental purpose in construing statutes is to ascertain and
carry out the legislature’s intent. Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn,
LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). If a statute’s meaning is plain
on its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an
expression of the legislature’s intent. Id. The court ascertains a statute’s
plain meaning by construing that statute along with all related statutes as a
unified whole, and with an eye toward finding a harmonious statutory
scheme.
1 Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals have no precedential value and
are not binding on any court, but if filed after March 1, 2013, may be cited as nonbinding
authorities and may be accorded such persuasive value as the court deems appropriate.
GR 14.1.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 39752-1-III
State v. Haas
6
State v. Bigsby, 189 Wn.2d 210, 216, 399 P.3d 540 (2017). Both parties urge us to give a
“plain meaning” construction to the VUCSA multiple transactions aggravator.
Current offense
RCW 9.94A.535 does not define “current offense.” However, throughout the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW, “current offense” is used to
describe the charged crime of conviction for which a sentence is being calculated.
For example, RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) directs how to compute the standard range for
each offense whenever a person is to be sentenced for two or more “current offenses” and
provides that each “current offense” scores as if it were a prior conviction. In addition,
RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c) authorizes an exceptional sentence when multiple “current
offenses” result in an offender score exceeding 9, thus avoiding the predicament of
allowing any current offense going unpunished. We construe “current offense” in
harmony with these related statutes and conclude that “current offense” refers to a single
charge rather than the entire case.
Involved
Absent a statutory definition, a statutory term may be given its plain meaning by
resorting to its dictionary definition. Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 766, 317 P.3d
1003 (2014). The plain meaning of the term “involved” is “included.” See MERRIAM-
WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY 1191 (1993). Thus, applying both plain
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 39752-1-III
State v. Haas
7
meanings to the challenged aggravator, we conclude that a court may impose the VUCSA
multiple transactions aggravator when the individual charge includes at least three
separate transactions.
The stated purposes of the SRA
Prosecutors have significant discretion in whether to charge incidents separately or
together. E.g., State v. Petrich, 101 Wn.2d 566, 572, 683 P.2d 173 (1984), abrogated on
other grounds by State v. Kitchen, 110 Wn.2d 403, 756 P.2d 105 (1988). Our
construction of the aggravator renders it consistent with the SRA’s stated purposes
to “[e]nsure that the punishment for a criminal offense is proportionate to the
seriousness of the offense and the offender’s criminal history” and that sentences are
“commensurate with the punishment imposed on others committing similar offenses.”
RCW 9.94A.010(1), (3).
Here, because the State charged the individual crimes separately rather than
combining the charges in the aggregate, it was not entitled to also have the VUCSA
multiple transactions aggravator applied to increase Ms. Haas’s standard range
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 39752-1-III
State v. Haas
8
sentence.2
B. LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
Ms. Haas argues, and the State concedes, that the $500 VPA and the $100 DNA
collection fee should be struck. We accept the State’s concession.
Shortly after Ms. Haas’s trial, the legislature amended the relevant statutes to
prevent those costs from applying to indigent defendants. LAWS OF 2023, ch. 449, §§ 1,
4. Both changes apply prospectively, id., and thus apply to cases pending on direct
2 The State cites, but does not discuss, State v. Reynolds, 80 Wn. App. 851, 912
P.2d 494 (1996). There, Reynolds twice sold methamphetamine to undercover officers
and once sold material she believed was methamphetamine. She was convicted of three
separate charges. Id. at 853. At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggravated
sentence, in part based on the current offense involving three or more separate
transactions in which controlled substances were sold. Id. at 854. On appeal, Reynolds
argued the evidence did not support the multiple transactions aggravator because only
two of the transactions involved controlled substances. Id. at 856. We agreed and
remanded for resentencing. Id. at 862. In providing direction to the trial court, we
commented that it could “consider facts that establish elements of additional uncharged
crimes to enhance a sentence when those facts are part and parcel of the current offense.”
Id. at 857.
There are three reasons Reynolds does not dictate a result contrary to the result
reached here. First, the quoted language is dicta. Second, Reynolds was decided before
the United States Supreme Court held that any facts that increase the penalty for a crime
above the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L.
Ed. 2d 435 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L.
Ed. 2d 403 (2004). Third, Reynolds implied but did not decide that “current offense”
related to the entire case.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 39752-1-111
State v. Haas
review. State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732,749,426 P.3d 714 (2018). Because Ms. Haas
is indigent, the amendments require the trial court to strike the challenged costs.
CONCLUSION
We remand for the trial court to sentence Ms. Haas within the standard range and
to strike the two challenged costs.
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
Staab, J.
Cooney, J.
9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.