State, Res. V. Guy Adam Rook, App.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
No. 68571-6-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	JUL " 8 2013
S 	ooo
*—• 	CD
	O-
GUY ADAM ROOK,
Appellant.
I
oo
2?
o 	o
Per Curiam - Guy Rook appeals the order of restitution entered following
his conviction for vehicular assault. 	He contends his counsel was ineffective for
not contesting the restitution amount and challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting various items of restitution. The State concedes that the
restitution amount included a double billing for an emergency room visit and that
defense counsel was ineffective for failing to contest the restitution amount. We
accept the State's concession.
With regard to Rook's sufficiency arguments concerning other items of
restitution, the State correctly points out that the superior court did not hold an
evidentiary hearing because defense counsel did not dispute restitution. 	In these
circumstances, the State contends, and we agree, that the matter should be
remanded for a restitution hearing at which Rook is represented by new counsel
and the State has an opportunity to present evidence on any disputed matters.
See State v. Saunders, 120 Wn.App. 800, 825, 86 P.3d 232 (2004) (where
counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to argue same criminal conduct,
court remanded for resentencing with new counsel); State v. Mendoza, 165
Wn.2d 913, 930, 205 P.3d 113 (2009) (when there was no objection to criminal

history at sentencing and history was challenged on appeal, proper remedy was
to remand for evidentiary hearing at which State could present evidence).
We accept the concession of error and remand for proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
For the court:
1
4~/<?./