Opinion
No. 53246-4-I, Consol. with Cause Nos. 53248-1-I, 53247-2-I
Filed: March 7, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 03-1-00155-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 09/19/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Richard F. McDermott.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Eric Broman, Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122-2842.
Jennifer L. Dobson, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
David Bruce Koch, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Brian Martin McDonald, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave Ste W554, Seattle, WA 98104-2362.
Darnell Webster appeals the sentences imposed following his guilty pleas to residential burglary, attempted residential burglary, first degree theft, and five counts of forgery. He contends the exceptional sentences imposed on two of the counts are invalid under Blakely v. Washington, U.S., 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) because the authorizing statutes are facially unconstitutional, and because the grounds for the sentences (i.e. that a standard range sentence is clearly too lenient given Webster's numerous prior offenses) were not submitted to a jury. These arguments are defeated by our decisions in State v. Harris, 123 Wn. App. 906, 99 P.3d 902 (2004), State v. Alkire, Wn. App., 100 P.3d 837, 841 (2004), and State v. Clarke, Wn. App., 103 P.3d 262 (2005).
This was the sole aggravating factor for the sentence on one count, and one of two aggravating factors for the sentence on the other. Regarding the latter count, the court stated that either of the two aggravating factors independently justified the exceptional sentence.
Webster also contends RCW 43.43.754 and the portion of his sentences requiring him to provide a biological sample for DNA identification violate his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. He further contends there is no authority for the collection of DNA samples via a cheek swab. These arguments were rejected in, and are controlled by, our decisions in State v. Surge, 122 Wn. App. 448, 94 P.3d 345 (2004) (holding that State v. Olivas, 122 Wn.2d 73, 856 P.2d 1076 (1993) is controlling on the Fourth Amendment issue) and State v. S.S., 122 Wn. App. 725, 94 P.3d 1002 (2004) (holding that cheek swabs are an authorized method of collecting biological samples).
Affirmed.
KENNEDY, SCHINDLER and GROSSE, JJ., Concur.