WA Supreme Court: Sentence, Not Plea Documents, Must Be Facially Invalid to Avoid 1 Year PRP Deadline

by

PRP of Clark

Clark plead to two counts of second degree robbery in 1998. The agreement stated he would serve one year of community placement, something which actually wasn’t statutorily authorized for his crimes. Though this was a bit beyond the one year limit on PRPs, he argues that the judgment and sentence is invalid on its face, allowing avoidance of the one year limit.

So is it invalid on its face? No:

The question is not, however, whether the plea documents are facially invalid, but rather whether the judgment and sentence is invalid on its face.” Hemenway, 147 Wn.2d at 533.

Here, Clark’s judgment and sentence is not invalid on its face. Clark asserts that the judgment and sentence is invalid on its face because it contains a term ofcommunity custody that is not authorized by statute. However, the judgment and sentence, as originally written, did not include a term of community placement.3

About these ads

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 476 other followers

%d bloggers like this: