State Of Washington, Respondent V Sandra Joan Gatten, Appellant (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

r FILED COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II 2011i APR 29 IM 8: L5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHI S DIVISION II No. 44171 -3 - II STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. SANDRA JOAN GATTEN, aka UNPUBLISHED OPINION SANDY JOAN ABBASI, aka SANDY JOAN HEISER, aka SANDY LYBECK, JOAN KNAPP, JOAN aka SANDY SANDY aka JOAN GATTON, Appellant. Sandra Joan Gatten LEE, J. pleaded guilty to second degree burglary. On appeal, Gatten challenges her offender score, arguing that ( 1) the trial court erred by including her prior convictions for welfare fraud because they are constitutionally invalid on their face; and ( 2) the trial court erred by including her conviction for first degree theft because it was previously found to be the same criminal conduct as her welfare fraud convictions. The trial court properly included her welfare fraud convictions because Gatten did not meet her burden to show that they are constitutionally invalid including Gatten' s on their face. first degree theft But, the State concedes that the trial court erred by conviction, and we accept the State' s concession. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing. FACTS Gatten Gatten' s pleaded guilty to offender score as 12. one count The State' of second degree s offender score burglary. calculation The State calculated included 7 points for 7 TON No. 44171 -3 -II counts of welfare fraud and 1 point for first degree theft. The welfare fraud and first degree theft convictions all resulted from the same case. Gatten disputed the State' s calculation of her offender score. Gatten objected to including six of the seven counts of welfare fraud. She argued that the welfare fraud statute provides for one unit of prosecution, and therefore, six of the counts violated double jeopardy; thus, the judgment and sentence was constitutionally invalid on its face. At sentencing, the trial court rejected Gatten' s argument and stated that the judgment and sentence on the welfare fraud convictions was not constitutionally invalid on its face. The trial court also found that the State failed to prove the existence of one of Gatten' s out of state The trial court calculated Gatten' s offender score as follows: 7 points for the convictions. welfare fraud convictions, 1 point for the first degree theft conviction, and 1 point for a prior drug conviction. The trial court sentenced Gatten to a prison -based alternative sentence based on the standard sentencing range for an offender score of 9. Gatten appeals the calculation of her offender score. ANALYSIS A. WELFARE FRAUD CONVICTIONS Gatten argues that the trial court erred by including her welfare fraud convictions in her offender score two arguments because the to support convictions are her claim. constitutionally invalid on their face. She presents First, she argues that the welfare fraud convictions are constitutionally invalid on their face because her guilty plea does not indicate that she read, or was read, the plea form prior to accepting the plea. Second, she argues that the multiple welfare fraud convictions violate double jeopardy because the welfare fraud statute provides for a single 2 No. 44171 -3 - II unit of prosecution. Both of Gatten' s arguments fail and we affirm the trial court' s decision to include all the welfare fraud convictions in Gatten' s offender score. As a general rule, the constitutional validity of prior convictions may not be challenged during State sentencing. v. Jones, 110 Wn. 2d 74, 77, 750 P. 2d 620 ( 1988). As our Supreme Court states in State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 188, 713 P. 2d 719, 718 P. 2d 796 ( 1986): A] defendant has no right to To allow an attack at that point would unduly and unjustifiably sentencing. overburden contest a prior conviction at a subsequent the sentencing court. The defendant has available, more appropriate arenas for the determination of the constitutional validity of a prior conviction. An exception to this general rule is where the prior conviction is constitutionally invalid on its face. Ammons, 105 Wn. 2d at 187 -88. " establishing the unconstitutionality of his The defendant, or her and not the State, ` bears the burden of prior convictions at such a proceeding. "' State v. Thompson, 143 Wn. App. 861, 866, 181 P. 3d 858, review denied, 164 Wn.2d 1035 ( 2008) quoting In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 111 Wn.2d 353, 368, 759 P. 2d 436 ( 1988)). When determining whether a prior conviction is invalid on its face, the trial court may consider the judgment 377, 20 P. 3d 430, plea, sentence and other documents that qualify as " the face of the Thompson, 143 Wn. App. at 866 ( quoting State v. Gimarelli, 105 Wn. App. 370, conviction." guilty and review the face of denied, 144 Wn.2d 1014 ( 2001)). the conviction When the defendant has entered a includes " documents signed as part of a plea agreement." Thompson, 143 Wn. App. at 867 ( citing State v. Phillips, 94 Wn. App. 313, 317, 972 P. 2d 932 1999); State v. Davis, 47 Wn. App. 288, 291, 730 P. 2d 115 ( 1986)). 91, 94, 734 P. 2d 500 ( 1987); State v. Bembry, 46 Wn. App. The trial court must be able to make a clear determination of the constitutional invalidity of the prior conviction based on the judgment and sentence and plea 3 No. 44171 -3 - II documents, agreement Wn.2d at 188 -89. otherwise the prior conviction is not facially invalid. Ammons, 105 Any time " the trial court would have to go behind" the face of the conviction, the defendant has not met his or her burden to demonstrate the facial invalidity of prior conviction. Ammons, 105 Wn. 2d at 189. Even where a guilty plea could be unconstitutional, it is not facially invalid unless the trial court can conclusively make such a determination based on the face of a guilty plea. Thompson, 143 Wn. App. at 867 -68; see also Ammons, 105 Wn.2d at 189. Here, Gatten cannot meet her burden to demonstrate that her prior convictions were invalid on their face. First, she argues that the plea agreement is constitutionally invalid because the trial court did not complete the section of the plea form indicating that Gatten read the document or that the document constitutionally invalid, constitutionally invalid was read to her. Although this may indicate that the plea was the trial court cannot conclusively determine that the plea was without going behind the plea document. Therefore, Gatten has not met her burden to prove that the welfare fraud convictions are constitutionally invalid on their face. See Ammons, 105 Wn.2d at 189; Thompson, 143 Wn. App. at 867 -68. Gatten also cannot meet her burden to prove that her welfare fraud convictions violate double jeopardy. To determine whether the welfare fraud convictions violate double jeopardy, the trial court would be required to determine the appropriate unit of prosecution for welfare fraud and then apply the unit of prosecution to the facts underlying Gatten' s welfare fraud convictions. subsequent Such an analysis of prior convictions is clearly inappropriate for a trial court at a sentencing beyond the face of the hearing. Furthermore, such an analysis requires the trial court to go far plea agreement and judgment and sentence. See Ammons, 105 Wn.2d at No. 44171 -3 - 1I 187 -89. Accordingly, Gatten has failed to meet her burden to show that her prior convictions for welfare fraud are constitutionally invalid on their face due to a double jeopardy violation. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by including Gatten' s welfare fraud convictions in her offender score. B. FIRST DEGREE THEFT CONVICTION Gatten also argues that the trial court erred by including her first degree theft conviction in her offender score because the conviction had previously been found to be the same criminal conduct as her 9. 94A. 525( 5)( welfare a)( i) fraud states criminal conduct shall be convictions. that "[ p] rior The State concedes offenses which were counted as one offense." that the trial found .... court erred. RCW to encompass the same Therefore, the State properly concedes error. We remand for the trial court to strike the one point included in Gatten' s offender score based on the first degree theft conviction and resentence Gatten. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. We concur: Maxa, J. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.