State Of Washington, Respondent V. Trevin Allyn Elder, Appellant

Case Date: 02/21/2012
Court: Court of Appeals Division I
Docket No: 66917-6

 
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).


Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number: 66917-6
Title of Case: State Of Washington, Respondent V. Trevin Allyn Elder, Appellant
File Date: 02/21/2012

SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from King County Superior Court
Docket No: 10-1-00777-2
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 03/30/2011
Judge signing: Honorable John P Erlick

JUDGES
------
Authored byRonald Cox
Concurring:Anne Ellington
Ann Schindler

COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------

Counsel for Appellant(s)
 Washington Appellate Project  
 Attorney at Law
 1511 Third Avenue
 Suite 701
 Seattle, WA, 98101

 Marla Leslie Zink  
 Washington Appellate Project
 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
 Seattle, WA, 98101-3647

Counsel for Respondent(s)
 Prosecuting Atty King County  
 King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor
 W554 King County Courthouse
 516 Third Avenue
 Seattle, WA, 98104

 Dennis John Mccurdy  
 King County Prosecutor's Office
 516 3rd Ave Ste W554
 Seattle, WA, 98104-2362
			

   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                     DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                        )              No. 66917-6-I
                                            )
                      Respondent,           )
                                            )
               v.                           )
                                            )
TREVIN ALLYN ELDER,                         )       UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                            )
                      Appellant.            )       FILED: February 21, 2012
                                            )

       Per Curiam.  Trevin Elder appeals from the judgment and sentence entered 

after a jury found him guilty of one count of theft of a motor vehicle and one count of 

first degree taking of a motor vehicle without permission.  He contends that his 

convictions for both charges violate the constitutional prohibition against double 

jeopardy.

       The State concedes that as charged and prosecuted in this case, theft of a 

motor vehicle, RCW 9A.56.065, and first degree taking of a motor vehicle, 

RCW 9A.56.070, were the same offenses in fact and in law.  See State v. Meneses, 

169 Wn.2d 586, 593-94, 238 P.3d 495 (2010).  The State also acknowledges that 

the relevant statutes do not expressly permit or disallow multiple punishments.  See

State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 766, 776, 888 P.2d 155 (1995). 

No. 66917-6-I/2

       We accept the State's concession. The matter is therefore remanded to the

trial court with directions to vacate the conviction for theft of a motor vehicle.  See

State v. League, 167 Wn.2d 671, 672, 223 P.3d 493 (2009) (remedy for double 

jeopardy violation is vacation of the lesser offense).

       Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                            FOR THE COURT:

                                            - 2 -