* State of Washington, Respondent v. Jose Rico Colon, Appellant

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59046-8-II
Respondent,
v.
JOSE RICO COLON, PUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
VELJACIC, A.C.J. — Jose Rico Colon appeals his sentence for felony violation of a no-
contact order. Colon argues that the sentencing court abused its discretion by denying his request
for a mental health sentencing alternative (MHSA) on a non-statutory, impermissible basis. Colon
asks us to reverse and remand for resentencing within statutory limitations. Because we find that
the court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
I. BACKGROUND
On April 21, 2021, Colon violated two no-contact orders by going to his ex-wife and
children’s apartment. This also violated the terms of his community custody under a drug offender
sentence alternative (DOSA), which Colon was serving at the time. Colon was convicted of felony
violation of a no-contact order. Colon requested a MHSA, but the trial court denied his request
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
April 29, 2025
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

59046-8-II
2
and sentenced Colon to a standard range sentence of 60 months. Colon, in his first appeal,1
challenged the trial court’s denial, arguing that the sentencing court failed to meaningfully consider
his request for a MHSA and rejected it based on a misinterpretation of the law. Division I of this
court agreed and remanded for resentencing to consider Colon’s request for a MHSA within the
statutory framework.
II. RESENTENCING COURT’S ORAL RULING
On remand, the resentencing court issued its oral ruling after hearing from the parties, the
victim, and Colon. The court framed its ruling around the statutory requirements for a MHSA,
listed at RCW 9.94A.695(1)(a)-(d). The court found Colon technically eligible because he met
most of the statutory requirements.
However, the court denied Colon’s request, finding a MHSA inappropriate. The court
concluded neither the community nor Colon would benefit from a MHSA for several reasons: there
was no nexus between Colon’s mental health diagnoses and his conduct underlying his conviction;
the victim’s opposition to a MHSA and her history with Colon; and Colon was a poor fit for a
MHSA because of his criminal history, non-compliance with court orders, and limited history of
engagement in mental health treatment. Even so, the court acknowledged a mental health
evaluation in the presentence report that indicated a nexus between the crime and Colon’s mental
health diagnosis.
The court also discussed Colon’s criminal history and history of non-compliance with court
orders, including four no-contact order violations and eight domestic violence convictions, all with
the same victim. The court mentioned Colon’s knowing violation of the DOSA terms by leaving
1 State v. Colon, No. 85043-1-I, (Wash. Ct. App. July 10, 2023) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850431.pdf.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

59046-8-II
3
the county of his residence and traveling to the victim’s county. Additionally, the court noted the
law violations in this case were two no-contact order violations by Colon.
The court recognized Colon’s previous mental health treatment and services, referencing
Colon’s engagement for three to four months in 2015 with court-ordered treatment. The court
discussed Colon’s current engagement in treatment within the Department of Corrections (DOC)
and how the court believed that such treatment would better serve Colon to change his behavior
than a MHSA.
The court found “little history of compliance with community custody and participation in
services,” and it did “not see a benefit to the community or a willingness on Mr. Colon’s part to
comply with services.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 33. The sentencing court ultimately denied Colon’s
request for a MHSA and resentenced Colon to 60 months within the DOC.
Colon appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. THE COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE MHSA.
Colon argues that the sentencing court abused its discretion by requiring a nexus between
Colon’s crime and his mental health diagnoses. He asserts the nexus requirement is a non-
statutory, impermissible basis. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
Generally, a trial court must impose a sentence within the standard sentencing range. RCW
9.94A.505(2)(a)(i); State v. Yancey, 193 Wn.2d 26, 30, 434 P.3d 518 (2019). “A defendant may
appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural
requirements of the [Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA)].” State v. Osman, 157 Wn.2d 474,
481-82, 139 P.3d 334 (2006). While courts “have considerable discretion under the SRA, they are
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

59046-8-II
4
still required to act within [statutory] strictures and [in accordance with] principles of due process
of law.” State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333, 342, 111 P.3d 1183 (2005).
Courts “may deviate from the standard range in statutorily specified circumstances,” such
as for a MHSA. Yancey, 193 Wn.2d at 30; RCW 9.94A.695. Granting an alternative sentence is
entirely within the sentencing court’s discretion, so long as the court does not abuse its discretion
by categorically refusing to consider the request or by denying the request on an impermissible
basis. See State v. Sims, 171 Wn.2d 436, 445, 256 P.3d 285 (2011). The sentencing court must
meaningfully consider the request for a discretionary sentence in accordance with the applicable
law. State v. McFarland, 189 Wn.2d 47, 56, 399 P.3d 1106 (2017).
B. Legal Principles
A MHSA has four eligibility requirements:
(a) The defendant is convicted of a felony that is not a serious violent
offense or sex offense;
(b) The defendant is diagnosed with a serious mental illness recognized by
the diagnostic manual in use by mental health professionals at the time of
sentencing;
(c) The defendant and the community would benefit from supervision and
treatment, as determined by the judge; and
(d) The defendant is willing to participate in the sentencing alternative.
RCW 9.94A.695(1).
Whether to grant a MHSA is entrusted to the sentencing court’s discretion:
After consideration of all available information and determining whether the
defendant is eligible, the court shall consider whether the defendant and the
community will benefit from the use of this sentencing alternative. The court shall
consider the victim’s opinion whether the defendant should receive a sentence
under this section. If the sentencing court determines that a sentence under this
section is appropriate, the court shall waive imposition of the sentence within the
standard range.
RCW 9.94A.695(4).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

59046-8-II
5
C. Analysis
The record does not support Colon’s contention that the sentencing court abused its
discretion in denying his request for a MHSA by requiring a nexus between his conduct and his
mental health diagnoses as an additional non-statutory factor.
It is apparent from the record that the court considered a connection between Colon’s
diagnosis and offense as a way of determining whether there would be a benefit to the community,
a permissible consideration under RCW 9.94A.695.
The court reasoned that if the underlying conduct of the conviction was not at least in some
way caused by a mental health issue, ameliorating Colon’s mental health condition via MHSA
treatment would have no impact on preventing similar conduct. This is not an additional element,
but simply one way to consider whether the community would benefit from treatment aimed at
controlling symptoms arising from Colon’s mental health diagnoses that could lead to criminal
conduct in the community.
There is a lack of authority on the MHSA “benefit to the community” factor. DOSA cases,
however, may be instructive by analogy. In State v. Williams, 199 Wn. App 99, 112, 398 P.3d
1150 (2017), the defendant requested a DOSA but was denied because of the lack of evidence of
drug use. The Williams court held that this consideration was not an abuse of discretion. Id.
Similar to Williams, here the trial court did not find a nexus between Colon’s conduct and his
mental health diagnoses. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion when it considered this factor
in connection with whether a MHSA would benefit the community.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

59046-8-II
6
Additionally, the sentencing court gave other reasons supporting its determination that a
MHSA would benefit neither Colon nor the community. These include the victim’s opinion,
Colon’s criminal history, Colon’s noncompliance with community custody, and Colon’s
participation in treatment and services.
The court acted within its discretion when it considered Colon’s criminal history to support
its ruling that granting a MHSA would not benefit the community. In Grayson, 154 Wn.2d at 342,
our Supreme Court stated that the defendant could have been denied a DOSA based on his
extensive criminal history and his continued offenses while on conditional release. Similarly, in
this case, the sentencing court noted Colon’s recidivism in the form of repeated no-contact order
violations and his domestic violence convictions, as well as his knowing violation of his
community custody. The court cited this evidence to support a lack of community benefit. The
court acted within its discretion when considering this evidence in finding a MHSA inappropriate.
See id. at 341-343.
The court acted within its discretion when it determined that continued treatment within
DOC was more suitable than a MHSA. The court considered Colon’s recidivism and mental health
and treatment history in relation to which sentence and corresponding treatment best benefits him
and the community. The court believed his DOC treatment to be better suited to changing his
behavior. These considerations speak to the court weighing Colon’s prospective treatment and
how to protect the community, considerations that fall under whether a MHSA would benefit both
Colon and the community. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

59046-8-II
7
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Colon’s request for a MHSA based on its
consideration of a nexus between Colon’s mental health diagnoses and his conduct. Instead, the
court considered the relevant statutory factors and made clear that its conclusion was based on the
lack of benefit to both Colon and the community.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm Colon’s sentence.
Veljacic, A.C.J.
We concur:
Glasgow, J.
Price, J.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.