Personal Restraint Petition Of Jorrell Avery Hicks (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

2016 HAY 23 AH 8=5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE No. 73578-1-1 PERSONAL RESTRAINT OF: DIVISION ONE JORRELL AVERY HICKS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION Petitioner. FILED: MAY 2 3 2016 Per Curiam. A jury convicted Jorrell Hicks of several charges stemming from a drug-related robbery and shooting in Snohomish County Superior Court Cause No. 11-1-02036-8. He filed a personal restraint petition, alleging, among other things, that the court imposed a sentence that exceeds the 10-year statutory maximum on his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. See RCW 69.50.401; RCW 9A.20.021(b). The State concedes error. We accept the State's concession that the trial court exceeded its authority in sentencing Hicks to a term of community custody of 12 months in addition to a 120-month term of confinement (consisting of a base term of 84 months plus a 36-month firearm enhancement), the statutory maximum for the offense. The trial court was required under RCW 9.94A.701(9) to reduce his term of community custody to zero. See State v. Boyd, 174 Wn.2d 470, 275 P.3d 321 (2012): see also State v. Winborne, 167 Wn. App. 320, 329, 273 P.3d 454, review denied, 174 Wn.2d 1019 (2012). No. 73578-1-1/2 Accordingly, we grant Hicks's petition as to this issue and remand to the trial court to amend the community custody term consistent with RCW 9.94A.701(9).1 For the court: 1Hicks has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the March 18, 2016 order of the Acting Chief Judge dismissing the otherclaims raised in his petition. Because the Rules ofAppellate procedure do not permit motions for reconsideration of such orders, the motion will be placed in the file without further action. See RAP 12.4(a). The appropriate mechanism for review of the Acting Chief Judge's order of dismissal is by discretionary review in the Supreme Court. See RAP 16.14(c).

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.