Facts:  Petitioner Gordon Bergstrom was convicted of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm in the Superior Court for King County.  At a subsequent sentencing hearing to determine whether Bergstrom should be placed on electronic home monitoring, Bergstrom argued pro se that the state of Washington had miscalculated his offender score insofar as some of his prior convictions arose from the same criminal conduct.  After Bergstrom’s motion for a continuance to present evidence that his convictions arose from the same criminal conduct was denied, the trial court proceeded to sentence Bergstrom.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Bergstrom’s conviction but remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing and ordered that each party be allowed to present additional evidence regarding whether Bergstrom’s prior convictions arose from the same criminal conduct.  Bergstrom appealed the part of the Washington Court of Appeals’ decision that ordered that the state be allowed to present additional evidence at resentencing.

Question(s):  Did Bergstrom’s pro se argument that some of his prior convictions arose from the same criminal conduct constitute a specific objection to the calculation of his offender score that placed the state on notice that it needed to present evidence?

Conclusion:  Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that Bergstrom’s pro se argument was not a specific objection insofar as Bergstrom’s attorney did not object the state’s calculation of his offender score either in their pre-sentence report or at the sentencing hearing.  Thus, the Court held that the state was not on notice that it needed to present evidence and that the trial court erred in failing to order an evidentiary hearing at which both parties would be allowed to present additional evidence.

Docket No. 78355-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 55374-7)

Petitioner: Gordon Bergstrom

(Counsel: Jason Brett Saunders)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Scott Frederick Leist and James Morrissey Whisman)

Argument: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://www.tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, October 25th, 2007

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Citation: Pending

Court: Alexander3 Court (2005-2007)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Bridge

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson