CANNED

^.Av^<^€= K\p,. in3Z7i-\-\

XNi TV\F <5,\^PREW\E CnviRT fiF TWF ETATF nF Ul A R WT.Ni C-tTO K<,ro n

S oCS5>—vPXT

cri'"— ic/(§-> ■y'

STATE OF \/J ASFTK\r-TnKU ^^ t>'Jlf?X:2n

/Wkescir)r\Ae.nV \ L-? crjO''>

\ J „ i AC.J ^.'O :Jc® :;r • f

\f.

RoREV D. OaLRFftX ^

/\p^e\\riKV *

11 Pftttt-om PnR rf\ixf\a/

5>CiW\:>\| (Lo\tiPr-V ^??nq5U\1

_SA:£L-£'-Pnr-A CreeW Onrr. (LerAer

IRI 0_nf^sA•af^Al OF

iAWrAee^ ) lOR QR'^An

Poop I n-P T

jX^fipWan-y (lc>\y>g,rV Q-Sks -VWva Cjnnr-y -Vo Qccep.-V

r&\}'\eu3 cy^ -VV\e. Q-OorA- rvf A.i^^e-o\s A&cA&'ion u)Vii c\-\yprrAlAfAeA r&OiPViL-^ 4-V\cA \s Aeg^i t^AaA-pX \rv Par-'VJ2i o-y mnAvon >

. S-1 Co vj£:y__Q:£, Aftft aQ\.s,..--L^Cis'LQjcv_

Rg_M\pvx3 'tf^ r&c|ue^-V-eX n-Q W\e b>'\v^\s\nn H n e,

,OopvjW\i. AeA Ofi\n'\or-\ -^ 'Ae-A on -^uVy \lo j RO \

ftrtA Ap—OrAffr- Aenpnj re. en ia?,\ A e.r Ai n a ̂ l\.CQfiy—Q-f 4-Ke AeC-isynn is \a A-Wp /\^ppPiA\y /\ .

,A ^.opy py Ap, orAer c\pAv/inj re const Aera-V\n A

jlS in Ae AppenAi y R.

Xa^JX §, S.U e,.5. esueA.e.A. AoLX-.^ReM iP-u3

doWap r\'s r A as-V\A-viAvO atA r\^As -Vn \he.prennn-V aaA -Vq rnt^ng^pA \i'io\rAp.A inW-eA VVN-e

ftop&rlnr coor-y fx.innp.nA&A Utg. ^oA^mp jiA haA

fiftn-VfinrP 1 rt ^ q\^spac€,

Page. 3. o-P 'J_

I— "VWe—f.vifigrlnr C.CT>^r"\" a mp n A m -p nA- o-^

C.Q\V:^erA's ^oA3mef\-V a.r\A sppl-Vpacp al-Vpr- -V-Wp

Ay qA \h-'\ C.d^g^ jClcxA £xvAiA\-e Ajlcci, Ao a a

C«,fip\\ Vlnn oA g met/.-) ru\& r.A Pr\m>nal

, prnCeAurP—ri.r>rNri\10 C P t\ Ay AUp \a1 a 5,Av Ann

, fiAn.Ae, ?)G^reme Cjpy rA 2-

r.A p m p r.A nA AAe C-nse-

Ajj^peWci r\A 0 n\AepA Aop.-s nnA A\5,^vAe, AA\p

prorg.A-LLrn\ ViisiAory—re^nrAing V\\f>j 9-0 \M—fi\) pg.r \ o r—C ou r-A Q.r R Ili_S im ̂ A l n r\ a a

pr'SMlAg.A \r> AAe on p uA\ vfiVie A n|\'inioia nrxA■Aoe.s—AfrpAy vArnr-poroA-p AAc^^p. AarAs Aptp ,.

(^£^)jsf\e.r\\ \t\\\^ RK\3\e\ij S,Vx.Qi

\. CQ\Ag.rAA—ri^V^A Ao Ae, prp5■Pf^A r. aA An■ C.Duns,g\ ;jja4 \]\Q\nAe^ > C,OT\Arar-y ^ AAe CnopAqA /Appf".a\?i o ^ n n fiArAAe:s ! ^ ~TV\\s u.ir.5;

g nA \ ft \ \ \/ fx m\A\aA&rWA qcA Ak rA \nftP> p>nAJl—C r 1 A \ C.fll—fiAfl g e oA AKe p>rn r.ep A i r.^ s q^ftmsAOx^^\Ap^A ■

Pc^gg. nA n

i

4 ̂

~T\-\ e. n n> \ tn m Is v a p.o a A\ i c A la3 I AV\ SvAnAe.

.V. Rnmns ̂ in \ VUa. <\ ^ P.3c\ 2\\

C^Ol l^ an A CaasA. nmenA. 'j \Nlft^A.

C^nn sA, n ̂ A , ^ sp c . n .

i1

Aau5 A-e.A\Ae..S *''■ ro\aaApn \ n\ acA

UL2^ t(\\i n\\) nn \^-iAlr\cA (\.\sc,rp-Vi n f\ . TV.PcV\nraf .-V^=r-\-2_cx-V\nri o-^ -4^ A\r'in.\ ni\i4-VMn r-t Vy

f-V-KrA reso\AeA >a -VK-e enAry nA a jviAvr.ir. ICirAsr—I a \t^ Vif.r e nAV y p. o nA rr. (\ \ r y An 4-kp-jg cce fi 'VciOC^ qA A\re<;A r&v i g vaJ n g. a moAAer-

1

1 nA ri qWA .1

11f1 Avn- -V\-,pr p\pr\co\ ert-nr?^ nrp CorrprApA

pursoanA Ao CrR T.R (aA as n^pospA Anr,n llrserA's CrR T. R ThiACMA MoA^inn Aor Up\\eA

Arnm "S'u^qmpnA. TAe ei\;p,e.rior CnurA AlAI

1

^ttiaA rp\>p.A \suA issop A npvnAWer in\fn\ iAi[ loAcmpnA nr\A SenApACe,1 s) J

lAnA doWiP.i-A tiP.PA prp.sprsA An oAijpcA or1 noA Ao^riWw App\r'i\;pA nA r o A5e.\ ,AAp p>rnc.-epA'i nquanolA Anup \rippA CO asAi'AvjAi nnalivy aAecjUciAc .

r. Afi qp M nA 1

-Vo (Vn gp p | i c a-l~in a n-f

a.r\rx.ounjLSuA—uq ^-Vr.'Vf' \I, \aI. R . ̂

1?^\ nsn , 3?.^r> P.-^A

LCon-Vrary ^ —0 nur-^ o-T Ap|NPnls mplnio£L^\'Va'Vg.-S—* Cq iber'V's j<.)A j«irMP n'V aniA -Se r>Ae.r\Cf^

re-ma\nf^r^ -H\rQi}q^VAoo~\~ 4-Ue

.prvi^C-ep.Ain^.'N ^eAnti).

F {n r^\'.Vy carMnoA" rA.'V-VrifV\ Arr> rv rnrwucA-mA

,an(^ s>Pn'\-eACP v)nA\\ -VV\€', ^-r^rncp.ss ro-P A'^re.cAr^\i \?,\Q A(x^ -enA^(\ r ■Brxre-FonV M> ^M(3 O.'^. %9.n ^ io?> s.dA- , ^ 1"?i^» ty A t —IQ^O ( 1^^^^ f J.r\Ae(aA ^ 4-Kere, W^s

f\ na rY^ft<^ArAAe \S5v>p.A -V-KaA erxAgv A-Fe

fire.'^er%A Airpr.A reui&io

One?'. A-h?—CcNUr-V O-G ncrppAftAdirecV rft-MiPU) oF C.o\FftrA'5 - rnrwivcAvon

mO-Vion ^ -VFp rlr.FA A-^^ A- \\p nn "nuA-n-F-A'irAPA{ rp f A ap>pprA rpg;A(^rfiA AAappp.nApnr.y—nA Qg^e « ■ZSA.meAp^ Onr.Aprm^LQ,^^55 U,s, W^^ lA-q s.c-v. ^ L..F.A. :iA( .

Fg^P q-G 1

■

"VVvP l^\rA-VV\ C\rco\'V V\f\5s Ae-Verirr\\fNe.A ^ -VV^e

p.nAr^^ Ci. •po'sA - p\^^^<^l\ r\rAer fY^c^vj nr ncA"e.cAr VWe A^mayiArV A-k-e \».'iAqmeA"V c\f\X A-Ue

f ' nJ sj

serxVppvc.p , TWe_ (LourA: exp^Va'meA A-WaA \aae-A-prm \ a \ AO (^^ApAAer sucK a.r\ nrAer qA-PpcA s

AV\e. A'io'^AiAvj o-G 'vuAnmeaV v AA>p ^<e\/ ^nnuirv/f o j ; 1 1 /

\a (i-iApA-Apr AA\€. PrxArvl dA AWp_ AmpaAeA

joAnwiPrrV rn^^AA Uaue. \^ieepv appeal e.A»O I *

UaiAe.A ?\Ap.Aes V• C-oVvJiAj 3-0 4 \^i3.A ^

13.A.4 ( q VK 0,1 r . XODL^X .

A A orApr- A-VxaA \5> "nviAVp. cA Ac^ opc^eal \-J s \

a\Ae.r AV\e. ■A^Ipia\iA\/ crQ a Vv'i A fi m prAo , V^ioA Qr\1 sJ J J

cipApr- A-V\aA \S ^urAV\| ^\p\^A&r\ft\ oaA \j\ nh"VSuVi^PfA" Aci n rpAe-uip.A rk.^^f>a\ Aoe5. 'o^'VaAA^pcA AAxp, -^vnrAvAy AAp ^re-Mioo^Vy^PvAprp A \oAnimprvAr OraA SepA"^aC€.. lAurrpAl

J

\1. V")rivApX fA-fiAP-i V ^(on ?-w?.A \U0 . \CoA \■ — ) 1 )

(1f\\ (l.\r, ';^nDi<?^ 'j OmAe.A "^AaVes V,t^oAf^an , ^q\ ^L>9. ^ f 4-VA (L\r.3>ooAA "v 5se,p rAfso RpovArN\\c. lAaAorrA\ C-jasJ \ i

Cn, Mi Ok\ aV\':>ma. \ ?)A4 V)(Si (IRMsAa

Pnqp ^ n'^ 1Nl

Tlnp n rrKarNAmPrrV crf C.olKer-V'5L prp\j\ni.3 5> jv.5A^me.nV .. .

cxrvA f^eAAe.Arp Aps-Vroyp.A -Wnp -t^inrAiAy as mCLAe.rippcire_n'\r bsy 4-Af prpsp^A AtrprA f^ippe.al » lornnrluAp. n-Vin p.riiilse u3Dn\A. rApnA AVx e (lovJ^A^ nA

Apppal^ acrp,pAe.A rpA/ ie.uo nA a m 1 a i Ver 1 al acA .HnreoxJer ̂ AKe. n a cA o I c^ a aA 4-Ue pre.se aA

clirecA revJ ipiA i>on ol A rp5 olA i^a Au)n \ Ca.\ \ y

b i A A 1 A ct pa A A A a Ve S .0

Fi C-O A e\ u .r\ n n :

AVv\ C.nnr"V sVmaldIA CuccepA re\;iev>3 -Por-AAe.

reri'^^AAS \AAirrAeA \a ParA E qaA va.r.aVe VKe.

Soper\Or CfAnr-Ar n r-A e a I VVs i A tsAr>.^c A\or\ Ao

iria\A Cl C.A a sA-i-VuA-i OA fjilU/ aAeqofAe. PearlaQ/,

V

J

b. CLolbsrV

^0^—3—o-Q 1

Ai^PFK\bxy A

C.OOf-'V Apppal^; npmmO

'

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

V.

BOBBY D. COLBERT.

APDellant.

I "I coo

No. 77332-1-1 ^cr»

DIVISION ONE •r* torn=V.'a

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: July 16^2018

3C " _Ul'

\xp C-)CO—ftJ

CO O—;\0

Per Curiam — Bobby Colbert appeals an order "correcting judgment and

sentence" and striking a condition of his 2005 sentence for second and third degree

rape.' We affirm.

In 2005, a jury found Colbert guilty of rape In the second degree and rape in the

third degree. This court affirmed the conviction. State v. Colbert, noted at 134 Wn.

App. 1007 (2006), review denied. 160 Wn.2d 1004 (2007). The mandate Issued in

2007.

Colbert has since filed numerous collateral challenges to his conviction, Including

an August 19, 2014 motion under CrR 7.8 challenging two conditions of his community

supervision. The superior court transferred the motion to this court for consideration as

a personal restraint petition. We dismissed the petition and Colbert sought discretionary

review in the State Supreme Court.

On August 1, 2017, a Supreme Court Commissioner conditionally denied review,

stating in part:

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 21 (boldface and capitalization omitted).

No. 77332-1-1/2

[Wlhile the State does not concede that the trial court lacked authority torequire victim reimbursement as a community custody condition, it hasconceded that the condition may be stricken because the victims have notsought reimbursement. Accepting the State's concession that thiscondition may be stricken, this court need not address the merits of thecondition. ^ ^ ^

As to the alcohol prohibition, it is expressly permitted by statutewithout regard for whether the crime was alcohol-related. Former RCW9.94A.700(5){d) (2003).

The motion for discretionary review is denied on the conditionthat the State take steps necessary to strike the victim costreimbursement communlty^ustody conditlon.PJ

The State subsequently presented, and the trial court signed, an order stating

that "the judgment and sentence filed herein on March 31, 2005, is corrected at

Appendix F to strike Condition of Supervision number 3."^ Colbert appeals.

Colbert's counsel on appeal contends the superior court violated Colberts

constitutional rights to be present and to counsel when it amended his judgment and

sentence in his absence. "A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be present

at every critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him." State v. Sublett, 156

Wn. App. 161. 182, 231 P.3d 231 (2010). The right extends to any stage of the

proceedings where the defendant's "substantial rights might be affected." State v,

Walker. 13 Wn. App. 545, 557, 536 P.2d 657 (1975). This includes sentencing. State

V. Robinson.T53 Wn.2d 689, 694J07 P.3d 90 (2005). The right to be present applies

at resentencing if the court has discretion to determine the terms of a new sentence.

See State v. Davenport. 140 Wn. App. 925, 932, 167 P.3d 1221 (2007); State v. Rupe,

^ Ruling Conditionally Denying Review, In re Personal Restraint of Colbert. No. 94100-9, at 3 (Wash. Aug.1 2017) (emphasis added). Acting Commissioner Burton's ruling was not entered Into the supenor courtrecord. However, this court may take judicial notice of prior records and proceedings in same the wseSee ER 201; .Qnnkane Research & Def" Fund v. Citv of Spokane. 155 Wn.2d 89, 98. 117 P.3d 1117(2005) (court may take judicial notice of the record in the case before it or in proceedings ancillary orsupplementary to it)sCPat21.

V 7

No.,77332-1-1/3

108 Wn.2d 734, 743, 743 P.2d 210 (1987). The right does not apply, however, where

the court merely makes a ministerial correction. State v. Ramos. 171 Wn.2d 46, 48,

246 P.3d 811 (2011). In general, a defendant "does not have a right to be present when

his . . . 'presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.'" State v. Irbv. 170

Wn.2d 874, 881, 246 P.3d 796 (2011) (quoting Snvder v. Massachusetts. 291 U.S. 97,

106-07, 54 S. Ct. 330,78 L. Ed. 674 (1934)).

Here, the Supreme Court Commissioner did not remand the matter to the

superior court. Rather, the Commissioner directed the prosecutor to take steps to

obtain part of the relief Colbert sought—I.e., the striking of a community custody

condition. This act did not Involve resentencing and amounted to the prosecutor

stipulating to Colbert's request to strike the condition. This was essentially a ministerial

act that was not a critical stage of the proceedings against Colbert. There was no

violation of Colbert's right to be present. For the same reasons, there was no violation

of Colbert's right to counsel. See State v. McCarthv. 178 Wn. App. 90, 101, 312 P.3d

1027 (2013) (noting that the right to counsel arises at all critical stages of the

proceedings and that "the standard for the right to assistance of counsel Is almost

Identical to the right to be present standard").

In a Statement of Additional Grounds, Colbert contends the amendment of his

judgment and sentence destroyed the finality of his direct appeal and required

application of the new rule announced In State v. W.R,. 181 Wn.2d 757, 336 P.3d 1134

(2014). We disagree.

Long after Colbert's rape convictions were mandated and final, the Washington

Supreme Court held for the first time In W.R. that consent to sexual Intercourse negates

No. 77332-1-1/4

"forcible compulsion," and therefore requiring a defendant to prove consent violates due

process. W.R.. 181 Wn.2d at 763. W.R. is not retroactive to a final judgment and

sentence. See In re Colbert. 186 Wn.2d 614, 380 P.3d 504 (2016). Colbert argues,

however, that his judgment and sentence is no longer final by virtue of the present appeal.

This argument is meritiess.

For purposes of retroactivity analysis, finality is generally determined by issuance of

the mandate on direct appeal and expiration of the time period for a writ of certiorari. State

V. KilQore. 167 Wn.2d 28, 35-36, 216 P,3d 393 (2009). Colbert cites nothing supporting

the proposition that the subsequent striking of a condition of sentence affects the finality of

a conviction and direct appeal. He cites to In re Personal Restraint of Skylstad, 160 Wn.2d

944, 162 P.3d 413 (2007), but the Skvistad court only held that a judgment was not final

where it was appealed, remanded, and on appeal again following remand. Here, Colbert's

direct appeal resulted in a final, mandated decision, and his current appeal is taken from a

collateral attack that resulted in the ministerial striking of a sentence condition. Colbert's

judgment and sentence thus remained final throughout the proceedings below. He is not

entitled to retroactive application ofW.R.

Colbert also asserts a double jeopardy claim but fails to identify anything in the

order striking the community custody condition that violated double jeopardy principles.

Affirmed.

FOR THE COURT:

u

Vl)\uV-d9e^

/

- **■ -

OrAer l^e.nymq Consi A,er aA-i OH/ -O

FILED

8/20/2018

Court of AppealsDivision 1

State of Washington

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

No. 77332-1-1

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent.

V.

BOBBY D. COLBERT.

Appellant.

The appellant. Bobby Colbert, has filed a motion for reconsideration. The

panel has determined that the motion should be denied.

Now. therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

'4..Chief Judge