State of Washington v. Shawn Alan Stahlman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
SHAWN ALAN STAHLMAN,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 36845-9-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FEARING, J. — Shawn Stahlman appeals from the amended judgment and sentence
entered for his Kittitas County convictions on plea of guilty to three counts of second
degree identity theft and one count of theft of a firearm. He contends, and the State
concedes, that a remand is necessary to strike the $200 criminal filing fee, $100 DNA
collection fee, and the interest accrual provision on legal financial obligations (LFOs).
We agree and remand accordingly. We reject Mr. Stahlman’s contention raised in a
statement of additional grounds for review.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In light of the limited issues raised, the facts leading to Shawn Stahlman’s identity
theft and theft of a firearm convictions are unimportant to this appeal. After Stahlman
pled guilty, the court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 77 months for those crimes.
The court also expressly stated that the sentence would run consecutively to his existing
FILED
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 36845-9-III
State v. Stahlman
2
sentence in a Yakima County case. The court found him indigent and imposed legal
financial obligations that included a $500 victim penalty assessment, $200 criminal filing
fee, and $100 DNA collection fee. A boilerplate paragraph in section 4.3 of the judgment
and sentence required accrual of interest on all financial obligations:
The financial obligations imposed in this judgment shall bear interest
from the date of the judgment until payment in full, at the rate applicable to
civil judgments. RCW 10.82.090.
Clerk’s Papers at 40. The judgment and sentence was entered on June 10, 2016.
Due to clerical oversight, the consecutive sentencing was not memorialized on the
judgment and sentence document. On March 13, 2018, the State filed a motion to amend
the 2016 judgment and sentence to reflect that the 77-month sentence runs consecutively
to the Yakima County sentence. The court entered an order amending the judgment and
sentence on March 26, 2018. Shawn Stahlman was not personally present at the hearing
but was represented by counsel.
Shawn Stahlman did not file a notice of appeal until May 22, 2019. Our
commissioner granted his motion to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. The
trial court found him indigent for purposes of appeal.
ANALYSIS
Shawn Stahlman contends the $200 criminal filing fee, $100 DNA fee, and
interest accrual provision must be struck from his judgment and sentence based on State
v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). The State concedes. We agree.

No. 36845-9-III
State v. Stahlman
3
House Bill 1783, which became effective June 7, 2018, prohibits trial courts from
imposing discretionary LFOs on defendants who are indigent at the time of sentencing.
LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 6(3); Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d at 746. Ramirez held that the
amendment applies prospectively and is applicable to cases pending on direct review and
not final when the amendment was enacted. Among the changes was an amendment to
former RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) (2015) to prohibit the imposition of the $200 criminal filing
fee on indigent defendants, an amendment to former RCW 43.43.7541 (2015) to make
the DNA database fee no longer mandatory if the State has previously collected the
offender’s DNA as a result of a prior conviction, and an amendment to RCW
10.82.090(1) to provide that “[a]s of June 7, 2018, no interest shall accrue on
nonrestitution legal financial obligations.” LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, §§ 1, 17(2)(h), 18.
State v. Ramirez controls Shawn Stahlman’s appeal. He was indigent throughout
the trial court proceedings and remains indigent on appeal. The State acknowledges that
his DNA has previously been collected pursuant to a felony conviction and concedes that
the judgment language requiring interest on his legal financial obligations is error.
Accordingly, the $200 criminal filing fee, $100 DNA collection fee, and interest accrual
provision on Stahlman’s financial obligations should be struck pursuant to Ramirez.
Given that the corrections will involve no exercise of the court’s discretion,
Stahlman’s presence is not required. See State v. Ramos, 171 Wn.2d 46, 48, 246 P.3d
811 (2011).

No. 36845-9-III
State v. Stahlman
4
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
Shawn Stahlman filed a statement of additional grounds, raising one ground for
review. He contends that the March 26, 2018 order amending his June 10, 2016
judgment and sentence to run his sentence consecutively to the Yakima County sentence
should be invalidated and the original 77-month sentence reinstated because the
amendment was untimely. He reasons that the trial court was required to correct any
mistakes on the judgment and sentence within 90 days and the time limit for collateral
attack is one year, whereas the State waited 21 months to seek the amendment. He states
that neither he nor the Department of Corrections was notified of the amendment until
April 2019 and this puts a strain on him and his loved ones because his release date is
now changed from 2021 to 2025. His arguments do not merit relief.
CrR 7.8(a) provides in pertinent part:
Clerical mistakes in judgments . . . and errors therein arising from
oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own
initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the
court orders.
(Emphasis added.)
Here, the sentencing court’s omission of the consecutive sentence provision on the
June 10, 2016 judgment and sentence was clearly an oversight, as the court expressly
pronounced the consecutive sentence during the original sentencing hearing. CrR 7.8(a)
sets no time limit to correct a clerical mistake. The court, thus, properly corrected the

No. 36845-9-III
State v. Stahlman
clerical error when notified, albeit after 21 months. 	Shawn Stahlman was represented by
counsel at the hearing, and his notice of appeal shows that the DOC received the order
amending the judgment and sentence on March 27, 2018, the day after entry. 	Stahlman is
required to serve the lawfully imposed sentence, as amended. He shows no error.
Remanded to strike the $200 criminal filing fee, $100 DNA collection fee, and
interest accrual provision from the judgment and sentence. The judgment and sentence as
amended is otherwise affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:
;Jzdow~!f-·Siddoway, J.
Q_
Pennell, A.CJ.
5
I
II