A plea to free Dennis Cook

APPEALS COURT FAILS TO READ THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS, DOCUMENTS

On 12/12/2000 my husband Dennis Cook went into an abandoned debilitated trailer & took items that value less than $218.00. This place was non livable & had been abandoned for 11 months prior to the act & remained so for approx 2-1/2 after the act. He was arrested & jailed, released on $10,000 bail that day. He was arraigned 57 days after his release (a violating of his rights from the beginning) & counsel did nothing. After 22 months of continuances to gather his prior criminal history he was fed up, nothing was done by counsel so he plead knowing he scored a 5 as all his prior class c felonies washed out as he had gone 8 years without committing a felony & 6 years without a misdemeanor. His range was 17-22 months. Instead he was sentenced to 6 years with a score of 10. We appealed.
IMPORTANT>> under Washington State SRA laws, on the plea agreement there are a few places that you, a defendant marks, Do you agree or disagree with the prosecutors understanding or your criminal history? Do you agree or disagree with the score? DENNIS MARKED NO NEXT TO NOT AGREEING WITH THE SCORE. HE MARKED NO NEXT TO NOT AGREEING TO THE CRIMINAL HISTORY AS IT WAS GROSSLY WRONG. THE STATE RECLASSIFIED PRIOR CONVICTIONS, FAILED TO PRODUCE CERTIFIED JUDGMENT & SENTENCES OF PRIORS & ALTERED HIS SCORE. As well under the actual scoring area he wrote "DISPUTED" Thus the state was mandated to produce & prove all priors. They did not do this. They also used scoring laws for 2002 when the law mandates the SRA for 2000 are to be used. The judge was told by my husband that documents were either missing entirely or were grossly erred pertaining to a few of his convictions & non certified documents were used as well which is illegal.
Here is their ruling. Please note their decision is inconsistent with the actual appeal, the records that accompanied the appeal & all matters of law & record. We have appealed this decision, As they say that he agreed with these issues. I have a website with all info & court documents please visit it at http://groups.msn.com/correctedjusticefordenniscook
I find it disturbing that I see daily 100's of appeals being denied due to people not disagreeing with the score/criminal history thus having to serve way to much time, we did disagree, verbally & in writing. We also stated documents were missing or erred. The original judge acknowledged this & agreed to review, he then refused such. I firmly believe that the Court of Appeals is not interested in the rights of the felons in regards to their rights to be sentenced according to the laws. CORRECTED JUSTICE needs to happen. I believe the courts are disregarding the laws & uphold the sentences.
Please help stop the Court of Appeals abuse of grossly illegal & extensive prison terms by signing this & please sign the other petition here 'A plea to free Dennis Cook'. For more info on the full appeals documents please visit me at http://groups.msn.com/correctedjusticefordenniscook

Below is in part of the actual appeal ruling. A appeals lawyer appealed for the out of state comparability only, they did 1 comparability out of 5. The law requires they do it on all of them. We appealed in the statement of additional grounds the failure to use certified documents, that he disputed the score & criminal history, that they failed to do wash outs of class c felonies etc etc. You can see this by going to
http://groups.msn.com/correctedjusticefordenniscook
The plea & court records prove that Dennis himself did not agree to the score or the criminal history yet here in the ruling they say he does. Cook did challenged the score in the appeal COOK NEVER AGREED TO ANYTHING THE STATE USED AGAINST HIM REGARDING CRIMINAL HISTORY OR SCORING!

Docket Number: 51507-1-I State of Washington, Resp V Dennis C. Cook
PER CURIAM. After being initially charged with residential burglary, Dennis Cook pleaded guilty to second degree burglary. Using an offender score of 10, the sentencing court imposed a standard range sentence. For the first time on appeal, Cook challenges the inclusion of five out-of-state convictions in his offender score, arguing that the court failed to follow the precise procedures mandated by the sentencing laws of our state. But because Cook included those convictions in his own offender score calculation, we will not revisit the process by which the sentencing court calculated Cook's offender score. We also reject the other contentions raised by Cook in his pro se 'Statement of Additional Grounds for Review.' Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS: Cook was arrested after he was caught stealing items from someone else's mobile home. He eventually agreed to plead guilty to one count of second degree burglary. The court accepted the plea, finding it to be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
At sentencing, the prosecutor submitted a document that listed 12 adult felonies (*SEE BELOW) as Cook's criminal history, and calculated Cook's offender score as 10. When given an opportunity to respond, defense counsel noted that there was no dispute regarding Cook's criminal history, that two of Cook's five out-of-state convictions would qualify as different felonies in Washington, and that the only disagreement concerned whether Cook's offender score should be eight or ten. Defense counsel went on to explain
that this scoring dispute had to do with whether Cook's three 1994 Yakima convictions should be counted separately or treated as one offense for sentencing purposes. Noting that those convictions each had a different victim, the sentencing court used an offender score of 10 to calculate
Cook's standard range sentence. This appeal followed.

DECISION
We are first asked to review the manner in which Cook's offender score was calculated. While claiming that his sentence was based on an erroneous offender score, Cook does not challenge the accuracy of the offender score calculation. Rather, Cook argues only that the sentencing court erred in
including five out-of-state convictions in the offender score because the State failed to prove their comparability to Washington offenses. Based on this alleged procedural defect, Cook argues his sentence must be reversed and the matter remanded for resentencing. We disagree.
Under State v. Ford,1 the State was relieved of its burden of proving comparability when Cook included the out-of-state convictions in his own offender score calculation. Accordingly, Cook waived the right to challenge the process by which his offender score was calculated. We find no reversible error.5
Cook, pro se, also raises various other contentions in his 'Statement of Additional Grounds for Review.' Many of these claims including ones involving alleged speedy trial violations, improper charging decisions, and evidentiary insufficiency, were waived once Cook pleaded guilty. Contrary to Cook's conclusory and unsupported allegations, there is no showing that his plea was constitutionally infirm. Under the circumstances, these issues have not been preserved for purposes of our review.6 Nor is there
anything in the record to support Cook's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. There is a strong presumption that appointed counsel provided effective representation.
(By L Cook>>Please note above they say that he agreed to score/criminal history & did not argue the score then heer they say he does )
As to the remaining issues, Cook appears to argue that his offender score was miscalculated. We reject these contentions because they are either frivolous on their face,8 not supported by substantial evidence, or involve matters outside the trial record.9
Affirmed.

FOR THE COURT: although classification is normally a mandatory step in the sentencing process, 'out-of-state convictions included in the defense's proffered offender score calculation, are properly included {in the court's calculation} without further proof of classification.
>>YET HE DID NOT AGREE TO ANY OF THIS
multiple convictions with different victims do not encompass same criminal conduct.
.>> THIS IS INCORRECT IF THE PRIOR SENTENCING COURT IN WHICH THE CONVICTION IS BEING COUNTED STATED THAT THE CRIME DID ENCOMPASS THE SAME CRIMINAL CONDUCT / EPISODE & RAN THAT CONCURRENTLY AS A RESULT OF THE JUDGES RULING, THE NEW SENTENCING COURT CAN NOT CHANGE THAT!
When reviewing claims brought on direct appeal, the court 'will not consider matters outside the trial record. AND 'Matters referred to in the brief but not included in the record cannot be considered on appeal.
>> THIS IS TRUE, COOK CLAIMED THAT DOCUMENTS WERE EITHER ERRED OR MISSING, THESE MISSING OR ERRED DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT HIS CLAIM TO SUCH ERRORS WAS ACCURATE & TRUTHFUL, YET AS THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED TO THE COURT AT SENTENCING THEY CAN'T BE DECIDED IN THE APPEAL, THEY HAD TO BE PRESENTED IN A PRP (PERSONAL RESTRAINT PETITION) THESE CHANGE THE SCORE BUT

(* COOK COMMITTED 3 CRIMES IN 1981, SERVED CONCURRENTLY.
HE COMMITTED 2 CRIMES IN 1984 WHICH RESULTED IN 6 CHARGES, ALL SERVED CONCURRENTLY.
HE COMMITTED 3 CRIMES IN 1994 ALL RAN CONCURRENTLY.
FROM 1994-2002 THERE WERE NO FELONY CONVICTIONS)