State of Washington v. Michael Lamar Odom

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL LAMAR ODOM,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 35494-6-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, J. — Michael Lamar Odom appeals the sentence from his guilty plea
convictions of two counts of first degree identity theft. He alleges the superior court
improperly ordered the two counts to run consecutively rather than concurrently, and asks
that we to remand for resentencing to correct his judgment and sentence. Construing the
two counts as running concurrently, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
In January 2016, Mr. Odom pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree identity
theft in Benton County Superior Court. After pleading guilty, Mr. Odom was released
from custody on bond pending the sentencing hearing. He was subsequently taken into
custody in Spokane County on charges of second degree theft and forgery.
At the sentencing hearing on the Benton County convictions, the superior court
imposed a special drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) sentence of 36.75
FILED
JUNE 14, 2018
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 35494-6-III
State v. Odom
2
months’ confinement and 36.75 months’ community custody on each count. During the
sentencing hearing, the court indicated the two DOSA sentences would run concurrent to
each other, but exercised its discretion pursuant to RCW 9.94A.589(3) to order the DOSA
sentences to run consecutive to Ms. Odom’s Spokane County sentence.
The judgment and sentence does not expressly state whether the two DOSA
sentences run consecutively or concurrently. Under Section 4.4 of the judgment, the
sentencing court crossed out the following boilerplate language: “All counts shall be
served concurrently, except for the portion of those counts for which there is an
enhancement as set forth above in Section 2.3, and except for the following counts which
shall be served consecutively:__________.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 203. The sentencing
court did not fill in the blank ordering any counts to run consecutively.
Mr. Odom timely appealed from the judgment and sentence on July 27, 2017,
asserting the sentencing court erred by ordering the two identity theft counts to run
consecutive to each other. He contends that by crossing out the boilerplate language
identified above, the court ordered the two counts to run consecutively, and the court
failed to meet the requirements to impose consecutive sentences for current offenses.
The general rule in Washington is that sentences for multiple current offenses will
run concurrently. RCW 9.94A.589(1). A sentencing court may order current offenses to

No. 35494-6-III
State v. Odom
3
run consecutively pursuant to the exceptional sentence provisions of RCW 9.94A.535,
which authorizes a sentencing court to impose an exceptional sentence if “there are
substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.” To impose a
consecutive sentence for current offenses, the court must enter written findings of fact
and conclusions of law setting forth the basis for the sentence. RCW 9.94A.535.
There is no evidence in the record that the sentencing court ordered the two DOSA
sentences to run consecutively. At the hearing, the court indicated it was running these
counts concurrently. The court did not enter any findings and conclusions supporting a
consecutive sentence, or otherwise indicate it was ordering Mr. Odom to serve the counts
consecutively. The court did strike the section of boilerplate language providing space
to impose a consecutive sentence, and in doing so also struck the phrase “All counts shall
be served concurrently” from the judgment and sentence. CP at 203. However, the
mere striking of this language is not enough to overcome the presumption under RCW
9.94A.589(1) that the sentences run concurrently.
Mr. Odom has failed to demonstrate the sentencing court ordered the counts to run
consecutively, and accordingly has failed to demonstrate the sentencing court erred.
Moreover, he has not demonstrated any need to remand for clarification or amendment of
the judgment and sentence. In the absence of any express language imposing a

No. 35494-6-III
State v. Odom
consecutive sentence, there can be no confusion under RCW 9.94A.589(1) that the terms
of confinement and community custody for each count of first degree identify theft are to
be served concurrently.
APPELLATE COSTS
Mr. Odom requests that we decline to impose appellate costs. As the State has
indicated it will not seek costs, no action is necessary on Mr. Odom's request.
CONCLUSION
The superior court properly ordered Mr. Odom's sentences for two current identity
theft counts to be served concurrently pursuant to RCW 9.94A.589(1).
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.
WE CONCUR:
Lr'.\ -..A .,. \_ ..-, (._<.__- ~ v,.,-, "l I C. \\
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. 	-)
4