State Of Washington, Respondent V. Richard D. Dickey, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
iIV! SfOj,"' ZO[ JUN 213 T H 9: 07 S ON GY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II No. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 45176 -0 -II Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION RICHARD DEWAYNE DICKEY, Appellant. JOHANSON, C. J. Richard D. Dickey appeals his sentence of 120 months incarceration with 12 months of community custody upon release. Dickey argues, and the State concedes, that Dickey' s sentence was improper because the term of confinement and his term of community custody total more than the statutory maximum sentence for his crime. 1 We accept the State' s concession and reverse and remand with instructions for the sentencing court to comply with RCW 9. 94A.701( 9). FACTS On July 19, 2012, methamphetamine with court. 1 Dickey pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of intent to deliver and requested admittance into " post disposition" drug The trial court accepted his plea and waived sentencing until Dickey completed the drug Because we reverse and grant Dickey' s requested relief, we do not reach Dickey' s other arguments regarding the invalidity of his plea and the doubling statute. No. 45176 -0 -II The agreement stipulated completion of the drug program would result in " a sentence program. of credit for time maximum fine served." Clerk' s Papers of $ 20, 000 per at 18. RCW 9A.20. 021( 1)( b) The maximum sentence is 10 years and a 2 should Dickey not complete the program. Dickey failed to comply with the terms of the drug program, abandoning treatment on several occasions. Dickey also acquired additional felony charges. About a year after he entered the Dickey program, was terminated from drug court. The trial court sentenced Dickey to 120 months incarceration plus 12 months of community custody upon release. ANALYSIS Dickey contends that reversal of his conviction is appropriate because the court imposed a sentence that 9. 94A. 701( 9). exceeded the statutory maximum for his crime, in violation of RCW The State concedes that Dickey cannot be sentenced to incarceration plus community custody because the total exceeds the 10 -year maximum sentence and, thus, violates the statute. We agree and accept the State' s concession. Under RCW 9. 94A. 505( 5), " a court may not impose a sentence providing for a term of confinement or community custody that exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime as in statutory maximum sentence of no more chapter 9A.20 RCW." Possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver has a provided than 10 years. RCW 69. 50. 401( 2)( b). The combination of terms for confinement ( 120 months) and community custody ( 12 months) in this case exceeds the statutory maximum 2 RCW 9A.20. 021( 1) confinement or by 12 states, "[ months. Accordingly, the trial court did not have authority to N] o person convicted of a classified felony shall be punished by following:... ( b) For a class B felony, by confinement in a fine exceeding the state correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine." 2 No. 45176 -0 -II impose the sentence. The proper remedy is for the trial court to reduce Dickey' s term of community custody. RCW 9. 94A.701( 9) provides, The term of community custody specified by this section shall be reduced by the court whenever an offender' s standard range term of confinement in combination with the term of community custody exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime as provided in RCW 9A.20. 021. As described above, Dickey' s total sentence was 12 months longer then the statutory maximum. The sentencing court must reduce Dickey' s community custody sentence in order to comply with the statutory maximum. Reversed and remanded for resentencing. 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: Vv ° RSWICK, J. MAXA, 3
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.
