Personal Restraint Petition Of Orlandis D Campbell (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two May 1, 2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II In the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of No. 50544-4-II ORLANDIS DONTE CAMPBELL, Petitioner. UNPUBLISHED OPINION JOHANSON, J. — Orlandis Campbell seeks relief from personal restraint resulting from his 1992 convictions for conspiracy to commit first degree murder (count I) and for two counts of first degree murder (counts II and III). The trial court sentenced him using count II as the predicate offense, resulting in a total sentence of 934 months. He argues that under former RCW 9.94A.400(1)(b) (1990), the trial court was required to use count I as the predicate offense, resulting in a total sentence no longer than 920.5 months. The State concedes that under State v. Weatherwax, 188 Wn.2d 139, 156, 392 P.3d 1054 (2017), the trial court erred in sentencing No. 50544-4-II Campbell using count II as the predicate offense. We accept the State’s concession and remand for resentencing.1 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. JOHANSON, J. We concur: WORSWICK, P.J. BJORGEN, J. Because Campbell’s judgment and sentence is facially invalid, it is not time barred by RCW 10.73.090(1). He filed an amended brief arguing that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing under State v. O’Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680, 695-96, 358 P.3d 359 (2015), and In re Personal Restraint of Light-Roth, 200 Wn. App. 149, 163, 401 P.3d 459, review granted, 189 Wn.2d 1030 (2017). But we denied his motion to amend his petition to include this issue, because it would have resulted in a mixed petition, and so do not address it here. He must file a separate petition raising his issue under O’Dell and Light-Roth. 2 1

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.