State Of Washington, Respondent V Howard E. Sanford, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
HOWARD ERNEST SANFORD,
Appellant.
No. 57242-7-II
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHE, J.—Howard E. Sanford appeals his sentence following a resentencing hearing. He
argues that the trial court erroneously imposed community custody supervision fees in violation
of RCW 9.94A.703. We agree. In a statement of additional grounds for review, Sanford raises
several arguments pertaining to his trial. We do not reach these issues. Accordingly, we reverse
the imposition of the community custody supervision fees and remand for the trial court to strike
these fees from the judgment and sentence, but we otherwise affirm.
FACTS
In 2019, Sanford was convicted of first degree child rape, first degree child molestation,
second degree child rape, second degree child molestation, first degree incest, and fourth degree
assault, each with a domestic violence enhancement. The trial court sentenced him to 318 months
to life.
On appeal, we remanded to the trial court for vacation of the first and second degree child
molestation convictions based on double jeopardy and for resentencing. The trial court
resentenced Sanford to 216 months to life and adopted the previously ordered community
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 2, 2023

No. 57242-7-II
2
custody conditions, including the condition that Sanford “pay supervision fees as determined by
the Department of Corrections.” Clerk’s Papers at 21.
Sanford appeals his resentencing. The trial court found Sanford indigent for the purposes
of appeal.
ANALYSIS
I. COMMUNITY CUSTODY SUPERVISION FEES
Sanford argues that the trial court erred by imposing community custody supervision fees
and that the recent amendment to RCW 9.94.703 applies to his case. The State concedes that we
should remand for the trial court to strike the community custody supervision fees. We agree.
At the time of Sanford’s crimes and his resentencing hearing, former RCW
9.94A.703(2)(d) (2015) authorized supervision fees as a waivable condition of community
custody. The legislature recently amended the statute, removing a court’s authority to impose
community custody supervision fees. See RCW 9.94A.703; SECOND SUBSTITUTE H.B. 1818.
Although the statutory amendment eliminating community custody supervision fees was not
effective until July 1, 2022, we hold that the statutory amendment applies because Sanford’s case
was still pending review when the amendment was enacted. See State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d
732, 748-49, 426 P.3d 714 (2018) (when a precipitating event occurs after the effective date of
the statute, the statute applies).
Thus, in light of the statutory amendment to RCW 9.94A.703, we reverse and remand the
to strike the community custody supervision fees.

No. 57242-7-II
3
II. STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
RAP 10.10 permits a defendant, in a criminal case on direct appeal, to file a pro se
statement of additional grounds for review (SAG). The purpose of a SAG is to “identify and
discuss those matters related to the decision under review that the defendant believes have not
been adequately addressed” by counsel. RAP 10.10(a). Here, the decision under review is the
resentencing held in 2022.
Sanford’s SAG raises multiple issues, none of which are related to the resentencing
hearing. All of his SAG arguments relate to trial; none of these issues “relate[] to the decision
under review.” RAP 10.10(a). Accordingly, they are outside the scope of a proper SAG, and we
decline to address them.
We remand for the trial court to strike the community custody supervision fees, but we
otherwise affirm.
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.
Che, J.
We concur:
Glasgow, C.J.
Veljacic, J.