Facts: Respondent Robert Vance was convicted of child molestation and communication with a minor for immoral purposes in the Superior Court for Snohomish County and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a persistent offender. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals vacated Vance’s sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court subsequently imposed consecutive sentences totaling 594 months imprisonment despite the fact that child molestation and communication with a minor for immoral purposes do not qualify as serious violent crimes and therefore would not ordinarily be subject to consecutive sentences, holding that, pursuant to Washington Revised Code §9.94A.535, an exceptional sentence was appropriate in light of the fact that concurrent sentences would be excessively lenient given the circumstances of the case. Vance subsequently appealed his sentence, asserting that, consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, the 6^th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that determinations regarding the appropriateness of exceptional sentences must be made by the jury. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Vance’s sentence, ruling that it did not contravene Blakely. Vance appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington, which remanded the case to the Washington Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of its decision in In re personal restraint of Van Delft. Upon reconsideration, the Washington Court of Appeals vacated Vance’s sentence and remanded the case to the trial court. The state of Washington appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington, maintaining that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon v. Ice overruled In re personal restraint of Van Delft.

Question(s): Is the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon v. Ice controlling with regard to the issue of whether the 6^th Amendment requires that determinations regarding the appropriateness of exceptional sentences be made by the jury?

Conclusion: Justice Sanders’ opinion for a unanimous Court ruled that Vance’s sentence had been constitutional insofar as Oregon v. Ice, in holding that a judge may engage in fact-finding with regard to the appropriateness of an exceptional sentence without violating the 6^th Amendment, overruled the Court’s decision to the contrary in In re personal restraint of Van Delft.

Docket No. 81393-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 55364-0)

Petitioner: State of Washington

(Counsel: Seth Aaron Fine)

Respondent: Robert Vance

(Counsel: Maureen Marie Cyr)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:30pm

Decided: Thursday, May 6th, 2010

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Petitioner)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders
(Majority)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens