|
1.
|
CrR 4.2(g)
|
Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to Non-Sex
Offense
To implement Laws of 2005, ch. 68 (SB 5477), relating to
exceptional sentences, on page 4, paragraph 6(h) has been deleted and replaced
with the following:
The
judge does not have to follow anyone’s recommendation as to sentence. The
judge must impose a sentence within the standard range unless there is a
finding of substantial and compelling reasons not to do so. I understand the
following regarding exceptional sentences:
(i) The
judge may impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range if the
judge finds mitigating circumstances supporting an exceptional sentence.
(ii) The
judge may impose an exceptional sentence above the standard range if I am
being sentenced for more than one crime and I have an offender score of more
than nine.
(iii) The
judge may also impose an exceptional sentence above the standard range if the
State and I stipulate that justice is best served by imposition of an
exceptional sentence and the judge agrees that an exceptional sentence is
consistent with and in furtherance of the interests of justice and the
purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act.
(iv) The
judge may also impose an exceptional sentence above the standard range if the
State has given notice that it will seek an exceptional sentence, the notice
states aggravating circumstances upon which the requested sentence will be
based, and facts supporting an exceptional sentence are proven beyond a
reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury, to a judge if I waive a jury, or by
stipulated facts.
I
understand that if a standard range sentence is imposed, the sentence cannot
be appealed by anyone. If an exceptional sentence is imposed after a
contested hearing, either the State or I can appeal the sentence.
Also
on page 4, the following new paragraph 6(k) was added to implement Laws of
2005, ch. 246 (ESSB 5743) § 1, relating to voting rights, and the remaining
subparagraphs were renumbered:
(k) I understand that I will
be ineligible to vote until that right
is restored in a manner described in RCW 10.64____ [2005 Wash. Laws 246 § 1].
If I am registered to vote, my voter registration will be cancelled. Wash.
Const. art. VI, § 3, RCW 29A.04.079, 29A.08.520.
On page 5, to implement Laws of 2005, ch. 460 (E2SHB 2015),
relating to special drug offender sentencing alternative, paragraph 6(s) was
changed, as follows:
The judge may sentence me under the special drug
offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) if I qualify under former RCW 9.94A.120(6)
(for offenses committed before July 1, 2001) or RCW 9.94A.660 (for offenses
committed on or after July 1, 2001). (Effective for sentences imposed on
or after October 1, 2005, the court may sentence me to a prison-based
alternative.) This sentence could include a period of total confinement
in a state facility for one-half of the midpoint of the standard range plus
all of the conditions described in paragraph 6(e). During confinement, I
will be required to undergo a comprehensive substance abuse assessment and to
participate in treatment. The judge will also impose community custody of at
least one-half of the midpoint of the standard range. Effective for
sentences imposed on or after October 1, 2005, the judge may sentence me to a
residential chemical dependency treatment-based alternative. This sentence
could include a term of community custody for one-half of the midpoint of the
standard range or 2 years, whichever is greater, on the condition that I
enter and remain in residential chemical dependency treatment for three to
six months, plus all of the conditions described in paragraph 6(e). During
community custody, I will be required to undergo substance abuse assessment
and participate in treatment as provided by the Department of Corrections.
At a treatment termination hearing schedule three months before the
expiration of the term of community custody, the judge could impose a term of
total confinement equal to
one-half of the midpoint of the standard sentence range, followed by a term
of community custody. During confinement, I would be required to undergo substance abuse assessment and
participate in treatment as provided by the Department of Corrections. Any
term of community custody imposed upon me under the special drug offender
sentencing alternative that must include appropriate substance abuse treatment, a
condition not to use illegal controlled substances, and a requirement to
submit to urinalysis or other testing to monitor that status. Additionally,
the judge could prohibit me from using alcohol or controlled substances,
require me to devote time to a specific employment or training, stay out of
certain areas, pay 30 dollars per month to offset the cost of monitoring and
require other conditions, including affirmative conditions.
On page 6, to implement Laws of 2005, ch. 218 (HB 1072),
relating to methamphetamine, the following changes to paragraph 6(u) were
made:
If this crime involves the manufacture, delivery, or
possession with the intent to deliver methamphetamine, including its
salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, or amphetamine, including its
salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, a mandatory methamphetamine
clean-up fine of $3,000.00 will be assessed. RCW 69.50.401(a)(1)(ii)(2)(b).
Laws
of 2005, ch. 288 (SHB 1854) amended RCW 46.20.270 by eliminating the
requirement that a person surrender his or her driver’s license upon conviction
of a crime that makes mandatory the withholding of the driving privilege by
the Department of Licensing (DOL). Now, the courts mark the driver’s license
in a manner authorized by DOL and a valid driver’s license remains in effect
until the person’s driving privilege is withheld by DOL. To implement Laws
of 2005, ch. 288, on page 6, the following change to paragraph 6(w) was made:
If this crime involves a motor vehicle, my driver’s
license or privilege to drive will be suspended or revoked. If I have a driver’s license, I
must now surrender it to the judge.
Also on page 6, in paragraph 6(y) the paragraph reference
was changed from “6[m]” to “6[n].”
|
