State v. Reyna - Sentencing Appeal
Summary
The Washington Court of Appeals reviewed a sentencing decision for Andrez Reyna. The court accepted the State's concession that Reyna's sentence for Grays Harbor County offenses should have been concurrent, not consecutive, to his Lewis County sentence. The case is remanded for resentencing.
What changed
The Washington Court of Appeals has ruled on an appeal concerning the sentencing of Andrez Reyna. The core issue was whether Reyna's sentence for offenses committed in Grays Harbor County should run concurrently or consecutively to a prior sentence for offenses committed in Lewis County. The court, accepting the State's concession, found that the Grays Harbor County sentence should have been concurrent, as the trial court apparently operated under a mistaken belief about the timing of the Lewis County sentence.
This ruling requires a resentencing for Reyna to correct the error and ensure the sentences are concurrent as mandated by RCW 9.94A.589(3). Legal professionals representing defendants in similar multi-county sentencing situations should note the importance of accurate chronological sequencing of offenses and sentences. The case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
What to do next
- Remand for resentencing to ensure concurrent sentencing as per RCW 9.94A.589(3)
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
State of Washington v. Andrez Reyna
Court of Appeals of Washington
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 60738-7
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Lead Opinion
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
March 17, 2026
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 60738-7-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ANDREZ GERALD REYNA, aka ANDY
REYNA, ANREZ GERARDO REYNA,
Appellant.
VELJACIC, A.C.J. — Andrez Gerald Reyna appeals his sentence after a guilty plea to three
counts of attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle and one count of custodial assault.
Reyna committed crimes in Lewis County before he committed the current Gray’s Harbor
County offenses. After his arrest for the Grays Harbor County offenses, Reyna was sentenced for
the Lewis County offenses, before then pleading guilty and being sentenced for the current Grays
Harbor County offenses. The trial court in this case imposed a sentence consecutive to the Lewis
County sentence, apparently under the mistaken belief that Reyna was under sentence for the
Lewis County offenses when he committed the current offenses. On appeal, Reyna argues, and
the State concedes, that the Grays Harbor County sentence should have been concurrent with the
Lewis County sentence. Reyna also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at
sentencing.
No. 60738-7-II
We accept the State’s concession and remand for the trial court to resentence Reyna
pursuant to RCW 9.94A.589(3).
FACTS
Reyna committed several crimes in Lewis County in April 2022. Reyna then committed
several crimes in Grays Harbor County in late June and early July of 2022. The last of these crimes
was a custodial assault that occurred when Reyna was arrested on July 14, 2022. In September
2022, Reyna was sentenced to 41 months for felony crimes in the Lewis County case.
The State charged Reyna for the Grays Harbor County crimes in November 2022. Reyna
eventually pleaded guilty in February 2024 to three counts of attempting to elude a pursuing police
vehicle and one count of custodial assault. The plea agreement stated that the State would
recommend the bottom of the standard sentencing range, while Reyna could request an exceptional
downward sentence and ask for a sentence concurrent to the Lewis County sentence.
At the Grays Harbor sentencing, defense counsel argued that Reyna’s “sentence should run
concurrent with the sentence that he is currently serving.” Verbatim Rep. of Proc. (VRP) (Mar.
25, 2024) at 18. Counsel framed this as a request for an exceptional sentence. In contrast, the
State “presumed” that the sentence for the current case would run consecutive to the Lewis County
sentence. VRP (Mar. 25, 2024) at 18.
The trial court imposed a standard range sentence of 51 months, with the four current
counts running concurrent to each other. The trial court imposed this sentence consecutive to the
Lewis County sentence, stating:
There is no reason for me to go above and beyond and run them concurrent; there
is no basis for that, as I understand. The presumption is consecutive. And I . . .
have not been presented with any real, compelling reason to do otherwise. So I will
2
No. 60738-7-II
follow the recommendation, concurrent as to the charges, but consecutive to any
other commitments.
VRP (Mar. 25, 2024) at 21.
Reyna appeals his sentence.
ANALYSIS
I. CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
Reyna argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court abused its discretion by using the
wrong legal standard. We agree.
“A sentence will only be reversed if there is ‘a clear abuse of discretion or misapplication
of the law.’” State v. Gililung, 31 Wn. App. 2d 718, 725, 552 P.3d 813 (2024), review denied, 574
P.3d 573 (Wash. 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Delbosque, 195 Wn.2d
106, 116, 456 P.3d 806 (2020). A trial court abuses its discretion if it applied an incorrect legal
standard. Short v. Schrader, 20 Wn. App. 2d 876, 880, 503 P.3d 580 (2022).
RCW 9.94A.589(3) provides:
[W]henever a person is sentenced for a felony that was committed while the person
was not under sentence for conviction of a felony, the sentence shall run
concurrently with any felony sentence which has been imposed by any court in this
or another state . . . subsequent to the commission of the crime being sentenced
unless the court pronouncing the current sentence expressly orders that the
confinement terms be served consecutively to each other.
(Emphasis added.) In contrast, when a person commits a felony while already under sentence for
another felony, “the latter term of confinement shall not begin until expiration of all prior terms of
confinement.” RCW 9.94A.589(2)(a).
It is undisputed that Reyna was not under a sentence for a felony conviction when he
committed the Grays Harbor County offenses. But the trial court clearly assumed that the RCW
3
No. 60738-7-II
9.94A.589(3) presumption favored consecutive rather than concurrent sentences, and believed it
needed a “compelling reason” to impose concurrent sentences. VRP (Mar. 25, 2024) at 21. Thus,
the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, which was an abuse of discretion. Schrader, 20
Wn. App. 2d at 880. We remand for the trial court to resentence Reyna and properly apply the
RCW 9.94A.589(3) presumption.
CONCLUSION
We remand for the trial court to resentence Reyna pursuant to RCW 9.94A.589(3).
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.
Veljacic, A.C.J.
We concur:
Glasgow, J.
Che, J.
4
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Washington Court of Appeals Opinions (CourtListener) publishes new changes.