Post-sentence Petition Of Wayne Alvin Holland

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
In the Matter of the Post-Sentence
Petition of:
WAYNE ALVIN HOLLAND,
Petitioner.
No. 86137-9-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — The Department of Corrections (DOC) seeks post-sentence
review of the sentence imposed by the trial court in State v. Holland, Whatcom County
Superior Court Cause No. 22-1-01300-37 and State v. Holland, Whatcom County
Superior Court Cause No. 23-1-01043-37. 	On October 2, 2023, Holland pleaded guilty
in both cases to multiple counts of felony harassment pursuant to RCW 9A.46.020(b)(ii).
DOC Petition, Ex. 1 and 2; Appendix to State’s Response. 	With an offender score
above 9, Holland faced a standard range of 51 to 60 months on each count. 	DOC
Petition at 15. As part of a negotiated plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend
an 	exceptional 	sentence 	below 	the 	standard 	range 	consisting 	of 	11 	months 	of
confinement plus 49 months of community custody for each count. 	Id. at 15. 	The trial
court sentenced Holland under both cases in accordance with the plea agreement. 	Id.
at 16-17, 23, 29-30.
After following the procedures outlined in RCW 9.94A.585(7), DOC filed a post-
sentence petition challenging the sentences imposed in both cases. 	DOC argues that
the trial court improperly imposed a term of community custody as part of Holland’s

No. 86137-9-I/2
-2-
sentence because the legislature did not authorize it to do so, not even as part of an
exceptional sentence. 	The State concedes, and Holland agrees, that the trial court
lacked statutory authority to impose a term of community custody. 	Because Holland’s
sentence was the product of a negotiated plea agreement, the State and Holland also
agree that the proper remedy is for the matter to be remanded for further proceedings,
including the possibility of Holland moving to withdraw his pleas.
We review a petition for post-sentence review for legal error, applying de novo
review. 	In re Post-sentence Rev. of Thompson, 6 Wn. App. 2d 64, 67, 429 P.3d 545
(2018). 	The trial court may only impose a sentence, including a term of community
custody, that is authorized by statute. 	In re Post-sentence Rev. of Leach, 161 Wn.2d
180, 184, 163 P.3d 782 (2007). 	"When a trial court exceeds its sentencing authority
under the [Sentencing Reform Act] (SRA), it commits reversible error." State v. Hale, 94
Wn. App. 46, 53, 971 P.2d 88 (1999).
Here, Holland was sentenced to 49 months of community custody as part of an
exceptional sentence. 	When an individual is convicted of a felony, RCW 9.94A.505(1)
states that the sentencing court shall “impose [a sentence] as provided in this chapter.”
It is well established that the SRA “does not authorize a court to impose community
custody for felony harassment,” not even for an exceptional sentence. 	State v. France,
176 Wn. App. 463, 473, 308 P.3d 812 (2013) (citing RCW 9.94A.701); see also State v.
Carter, 3 Wn.3d 198, 230, 548 P.3d 935 (2024) (“an exceptional sentence does not
allow the court to impose community custody where no statute authorizes it for the
crime of conviction.”). Consequently, the trial court did not have the authority to impose
community custody on Holland as part of his sentence.

No. 86137-9-I/3
-3-
"When a trial court exceeds its sentencing authority under the SRA, it commits
reversible error." 	State v. Hale, 94 Wn. App. 46, 53, 971 P.2d 88 (1999). 	Because the
trial court imposed a sentence not authorized by law pursuant to a negotiated plea
agreement, we agree the proper remedy is to remand for further proceedings, including
the possibility of Holland moving to withdraw his plea. 	See State v. Barber, 170 Wn.2d
854, 872-73, 248 P.3d 494 (2011) (noting that parties cannot enter into an illegal plea
agreement).
In light of the State’s concession of error, we grant DOC’s petition for post-
sentence review and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Granted.
FOR THE COURT: