Volume 47 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Punishment — Probation — Restitution — Power</bold> <bold>of Court.</bold> The courts of this state have no inherent power to order a person convicted of a crime to pay restitution. <bold>[2] Statutes — Construction — Unambiguous Language — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> An unambiguous statute is not subject to construction. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Punishment — Probation — Restitution — Future</bold> <bold>Expenses of Victim.</bold> RCW 9.94A.140 does not authorize restitution for a victim's medical expenses for which no obligation to pay has yet accrued.

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Evidence — Suppression — Findings and</bold> <bold>Conclusions — Delay — Effect.</bold> A trial court's failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law from a suppression hearing until after the defendant files a notice of appeal from his conviction is not a basis for overturning the conviction absent a showing that the defendant was prejudiced by the delay. <bold>[2] Searches and Seizures — Consent — Joint Control — Test.</bold> A person's consent to search another person's living area is valid if the consenting person, based on his own joint access or control over the area, has the authority to permit the search and the other person reasonably has assumed the risk that the consenting party might permit a search. The validity of such a consent depends on all the circumstances present, including the consenting party's receipt of rent from the other person, the presence of a lock on the door leading to the living area, the length of time the other person has resided there, the consenting party's use of that area, and his need for access to property stored there. <bold>[3] Searches and Seizures — Consent — Scope — Second Search.</bold> Whether a consent to search applies to a later search depends on the time elapsed between the searches and whether the second search has the same objective as the first search and is conducted by the same officers. <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Review — Harmless Error — Constitutional</bold> <bold>Error — In General.</bold> Error of constitutional magnitude is harmless if the appellate court, after reviewing the entire record, is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable finder of fact would have found the properly admitted evidence to be so overwhelming that it necessarily leads to a finding of guilt. <bold>[5] Criminal Law — Trial — Misconduct of Prosecutor — Argument —</bold> <bold>Waiver — Failure To Object.</bold> By not objecting to a prosecutor's argument and not requesting a curative instruction, a criminal defendant waives his right to raise the issue on appeal unless the argument was so flagrant and ill intentioned and the resulting prejudice so enduring that no instruction could have remedied it. <bold>[6] Criminal Law — Punishment — Sentence — Criminal History —</bold> <bold>Identity — Waiver.</bold> By not stating at his sentencing hearing that he was not the person named in a previous conviction,<page_number>Page 898</page_number> a convicted person waives his right to raise the identity issue on appeal.